RE: Be Wary of "Experts"

[kyriacos]

Yes, on the subject of astrology. Which you should know is stupid and not be interested in from the outset. However if you were interested then their years of study would be valuable. Despite the fact that the field is hog wash.

I can say the same about psychology. I can say that about anything. You know "it's stupid man".

Accomplishments in the field of supposed expertise.

Bogus accomplishments and self-honoring don't make the field valid. anyone can come up with a field and crown themselves experts in it. The field doesn't make the person's findings valid.

Nonsense, now your just putting your ignorance on display.

I would suggest you do your research before you comment in my posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Comments

[justtryme90]

You can't say it about psychology because psychology explains things that happen. Astrology attempts to create a causal relationship between two unrelated things. So that's a poor example.

No self honor isn't a justification, that's not an accomplishment, however actually advancing a field in a measurable way is. Your just skirting around the issue.

I'm well aware of the reproducibility issues in science publication. This doesn't make your statements any more true.

Perhaps you should focus on writing a better post then throwing shade at me.

Still not more true buddy. :)

[kyriacos]

You can't say it about psychology because psychology explains things that happen. Astrology attempts to create a causal relationship between two unrelated things. So that's a poor example.

Psychology uses causal relationship between two or more unrelated things all the time. That's how the narrative is created. Actually, to step this up a bit I dare you to bring a study of your choice to I can demonstrate this to you.

No self honor isn't a justification, that's not an accomplishment, however actually advancing a field in a measurable way is. Your just skirting around the issue.

How can you tell if a field is even valid? Why have a "field" anyways when there is so much trash all over it, overshadowing actual research (aka neurobiology vs bullshit psychology)

I'm well aware of the reproducibility issues in science publication. This doesn't make your statements any more true.

Actually it does because so far we know that most are not replicable and in my dictionary. no replicability = snake oil.

Perhaps you should focus on writing a better post then throwing shade at me.

my post is good enough. I have yet to see a valid counter argument. I am well aware of the opposing arguments. This is why it is so easy for me to bring evidence to the table. I am very careful with that I write and almost always I can anticipate the "classic" response.

I was in academia for some time in case you didn't know.