Well, we don't actually disagree on anything haha. I am also convinced that PTSD is a real thing. I am only arguing that psychologists are abusing the label of "science" in order to give themselves a level of credibility they do not deserve.
“QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.”
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most fundamental theory of physics.
I sympthasize with your prioritizing of the truth over winning an online argument. Let's upgrade our standards for a scientific theory from “I think it's pretty obvious” and “Some things are self explanatory”, to the definition provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory:
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”
“A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.”
Do you see why PTSD is not a scientific theory? The observation that some soldiers returning from warzones suffer stress is a fact, not an explanation. Certainly their stress is not a theory either, even if you give it a long and fancy name like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
For the record, I am also surprised that the Law of Gravity is not a scientific theory.
Statistical fuzziness in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Regarding your alleged psychological theory, please let me know if this is an accurate description of your thought process:
You have no idea if PTSD is actually a theory, and haven't even done the most preliminary Google search to confirm this, but expect me to perform the search myself in order to support your own argument and refute my own?
I understand that you believe there is a theory. But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no evidence that this theory exists. The word "theory" has occurred 9 times so far in this comment chain, and still, nobody has identified a single psychological theory by name. Not one!
The statistical fuzziness you speak of is an aspect of the Standard Model in physics, too. Psychology is not special in this regard. What makes psychology special, is its complete lack of a theory, and therefore complete lack of legitimacy as a scientific field.
If you're concerned about me unfairly influencing your own vote, you are welcome to refrain from voting or refrain from reading the comments until after you vote.
I appreciate you going out of your way to cite multiple studies for me, but that is missing the point. There's no theory to explain any correlation between environment X and crime Y. If there had been, you would have just named the theory, since that's easier than scouring the internet for the papers you did find.
Because there is no theory, there cannot be a field of science called psychology. There are just a lot of studies and conjectures (contradicting each other) which are labeled "psychology", and falsely represented as an actual field of science. It is immaterial how rigorously these studies were performed, because data-gathering and observation-making do not constitute a scientific theory in and of themselves.
I also despise semantic arguments, but I am using Wikipedia's crystal-clear definition of psychology, and I intend to win the debate on that point alone. Like I noted at the bottom of my first round, I was inspired by someone else, and in fact I did not have this opinion a week ago. But I now agree with it wholeheartedly.
If psychology is what you say it is, and this study is a legitimate science, you should be able to identify a theory based on these factors. For example, physics has the standard model, medicine has germ theory, chemistry has kinetic gas theory, etc.
Psychology has ... ?
It's important to emphasize that before these fields existed, we still knew that apples fell from trees, people got sick from contact with the dead, and the steam from a kettle cooled off over time. The fields came into existence with the development of theories which provided falsifiable explanations.
The observation of criminals robbing banks, on the other hand, is not explained by any psychological theory (prove me wrong).
For the record, my psychokinesiology argument was supposed to be based on the same logic as Paul Lutus' gourd argument, but I messed it up, because it has an explanation and so would actually be a legit science were additional predictions to hold true. For instance, I would fail a dare to reverse the course of the sun.
Psychology causes human actions? Are you using the word "psychology" to mean different things at different times in the same paragraph, or does the field of psychology cause criminals to rob banks?
This is not pointless quibbling, because my other interlocutors are similarly unable to maintain a coherent definition of "psychology".
I predict that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. I base this prediction on my own powers of psychokinesis, which I will use to lift it above the horizon. In a few hours my prediction will be put to the test. If it comes true, do I get to declare psychokinesiology a new field of science? Because this is the same logic you're using to defend psychology.
You imply that psychiatrists practice psychology, not the pseudoscience of psychiatry. That's like an astrophysicist calling themselves an astrologer. Do you acknowledge how ridiculous that sounds? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke, but you continue to confuse the mind with the brain after being corrected.
I think you didn't click my link to the Wikipedia article on Psychology, where it is explicitly defined as science of the mind. The link is blue, near the top of the page, so it's hard to understand how you could have missed something so obvious ... unless you are a psychologist.
I must say that yours is the most ridiculous and false RFD I have ever read, but I appreciate any and all votes, so thanks for voting and taking the time to write out your thoughts.
My argument is based on something specifically Christian. I will update the debate.
If you are not Catholic, and wish to argue for a different Christian denomination, please let me know what it is in the comments so I can consider if you are a valid target for the tactic I aim to pursue.
Thank you for reconsidering. I appreciate you letting me know, but I am okay with leaving the votes how they are since of course I have no illusion about winning a debate wherein I admitted defeat.
I am confused as to your explanation for awarding my opponent source points, since numerically I provided far more quotes and I'm not aware of any argument I made that required anyone to actually open Mein Kampf. But, I am grateful for the RFD and the conduct point. Thanks for voting!
As expected, a very interesting RFD. Did not disappoint. Thought-stream RFDs are the best!
I am surprised that I did not get any points, but I can't complain.
By the way, copy-pasting the same paragraph in 2 different rounds was an accident. I thought I had run out of room so I had saved it to my computer for the next round. Apparently, I had not actually run out of room.
There's no hurry at all. Please take your time. I did not mean to come off as demanding or in a rush! I am just really interested in your opinion. And I liked your vote on my first-ever debate here.
Also, I would be more than happy to return the favor, but you don't seem to have any in voting period at the moment.
I was looking at your profile and I saw you are undefeated for almost a hundred debates (seems to defy statistics), so your vote in particular would mean a lot. I know you probably got a notification already, but perhaps it went unnoticed.
Thanks for the response, I shall do my best to rebut them as soon as I finish the therapy sessions I just signed up for. And the psych-eval after that.
"Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”."
Figuratively speaking, this is more-or-less the case in the southern USA. By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported.
"I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US."
The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate.
You make some good points. I will try to respond to a couple, since I'm working on my other debate.
"I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think."
That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.
"Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate."
People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.
"I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it."
Your vote would be appreciated. By the way, I'm already completely certain they are going to use the Bible.
CTRL + F is a powerful thing 😉 I don't think we need to count literally each one, because based on the quantity and quality of the first ones presented, the voters can get a reasonable picture of the whole thing.
You are free to use additional arguments. I just need you to use AT LEAST the 3 I mentioned.
"Science proves the inequality of races."
Or,
"Intelligence testing, national prosperity (e.g. GDP), and historical developments prove the inequality of races."
Feel free to add other arguments.
Yes sir, I do have all the doctorates in all the stuff.
Sorry for the forfeit, I forgot about this debate. Would you like to have it again?
Thanks! I appreciate you taking time to read everything and share an in-depth RFV.
Why do you eat babies? Some questions have no answers.
“I am 50% sure that Puachu is a bot” 😄
“Take a walk away from your computer.”
Never! 😠
Well, we don't actually disagree on anything haha. I am also convinced that PTSD is a real thing. I am only arguing that psychologists are abusing the label of "science" in order to give themselves a level of credibility they do not deserve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
“QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quanta) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles.”
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the most fundamental theory of physics.
I sympthasize with your prioritizing of the truth over winning an online argument. Let's upgrade our standards for a scientific theory from “I think it's pretty obvious” and “Some things are self explanatory”, to the definition provided by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory:
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”
“A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.”
Do you see why PTSD is not a scientific theory? The observation that some soldiers returning from warzones suffer stress is a fact, not an explanation. Certainly their stress is not a theory either, even if you give it a long and fancy name like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
For the record, I am also surprised that the Law of Gravity is not a scientific theory.
Statistical fuzziness in physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Regarding your alleged psychological theory, please let me know if this is an accurate description of your thought process:
You have no idea if PTSD is actually a theory, and haven't even done the most preliminary Google search to confirm this, but expect me to perform the search myself in order to support your own argument and refute my own?
I understand that you believe there is a theory. But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no evidence that this theory exists. The word "theory" has occurred 9 times so far in this comment chain, and still, nobody has identified a single psychological theory by name. Not one!
The statistical fuzziness you speak of is an aspect of the Standard Model in physics, too. Psychology is not special in this regard. What makes psychology special, is its complete lack of a theory, and therefore complete lack of legitimacy as a scientific field.
If you're concerned about me unfairly influencing your own vote, you are welcome to refrain from voting or refrain from reading the comments until after you vote.
I appreciate you going out of your way to cite multiple studies for me, but that is missing the point. There's no theory to explain any correlation between environment X and crime Y. If there had been, you would have just named the theory, since that's easier than scouring the internet for the papers you did find.
Because there is no theory, there cannot be a field of science called psychology. There are just a lot of studies and conjectures (contradicting each other) which are labeled "psychology", and falsely represented as an actual field of science. It is immaterial how rigorously these studies were performed, because data-gathering and observation-making do not constitute a scientific theory in and of themselves.
I also despise semantic arguments, but I am using Wikipedia's crystal-clear definition of psychology, and I intend to win the debate on that point alone. Like I noted at the bottom of my first round, I was inspired by someone else, and in fact I did not have this opinion a week ago. But I now agree with it wholeheartedly.
If psychology is what you say it is, and this study is a legitimate science, you should be able to identify a theory based on these factors. For example, physics has the standard model, medicine has germ theory, chemistry has kinetic gas theory, etc.
Psychology has ... ?
It's important to emphasize that before these fields existed, we still knew that apples fell from trees, people got sick from contact with the dead, and the steam from a kettle cooled off over time. The fields came into existence with the development of theories which provided falsifiable explanations.
The observation of criminals robbing banks, on the other hand, is not explained by any psychological theory (prove me wrong).
For the record, my psychokinesiology argument was supposed to be based on the same logic as Paul Lutus' gourd argument, but I messed it up, because it has an explanation and so would actually be a legit science were additional predictions to hold true. For instance, I would fail a dare to reverse the course of the sun.
Psychology causes human actions? Are you using the word "psychology" to mean different things at different times in the same paragraph, or does the field of psychology cause criminals to rob banks?
This is not pointless quibbling, because my other interlocutors are similarly unable to maintain a coherent definition of "psychology".
You are just confirming my opening statement in the debate.
I predict that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. I base this prediction on my own powers of psychokinesis, which I will use to lift it above the horizon. In a few hours my prediction will be put to the test. If it comes true, do I get to declare psychokinesiology a new field of science? Because this is the same logic you're using to defend psychology.
You imply that psychiatrists practice psychology, not the pseudoscience of psychiatry. That's like an astrophysicist calling themselves an astrologer. Do you acknowledge how ridiculous that sounds? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misspoke, but you continue to confuse the mind with the brain after being corrected.
I think you didn't click my link to the Wikipedia article on Psychology, where it is explicitly defined as science of the mind. The link is blue, near the top of the page, so it's hard to understand how you could have missed something so obvious ... unless you are a psychologist.
Looking forward to some high-quality intellectual content in this upcoming battle of minds.
I did notice the update in your RFD and just want to say I appreciate it.
I must say that yours is the most ridiculous and false RFD I have ever read, but I appreciate any and all votes, so thanks for voting and taking the time to write out your thoughts.
"I live peacefully in my monastary, helping the poor while spreading the good news, only debating online in my free time."
Haha
Great, Con is a forfeiting bot, and is also going to forfeit my Einstein debate.
"taking a full 30 seconds to wash my hands"
What are your friends doing in the bathroom?
This debate won't work for devil's advocates, anyway.
My argument is based on something specifically Christian. I will update the debate.
If you are not Catholic, and wish to argue for a different Christian denomination, please let me know what it is in the comments so I can consider if you are a valid target for the tactic I aim to pursue.
Thank you for reconsidering. I appreciate you letting me know, but I am okay with leaving the votes how they are since of course I have no illusion about winning a debate wherein I admitted defeat.
I am confused as to your explanation for awarding my opponent source points, since numerically I provided far more quotes and I'm not aware of any argument I made that required anyone to actually open Mein Kampf. But, I am grateful for the RFD and the conduct point. Thanks for voting!
Thanks for voting, especially to fauxlaw for the RFD.
In retrospect, yes definitely.
Thanks for acknowledging my superior skill in outwitting my opponent, much appreciated.
I respect that, thanks for voting. Perhaps my culinary lingo is not strictly on point.
Thank you for voting!
Thanks!
🍖 Yum! Thanks for voting!
Thanks 😊
I will try to do better this time.
As expected, a very interesting RFD. Did not disappoint. Thought-stream RFDs are the best!
I am surprised that I did not get any points, but I can't complain.
By the way, copy-pasting the same paragraph in 2 different rounds was an accident. I thought I had run out of room so I had saved it to my computer for the next round. Apparently, I had not actually run out of room.
There's no hurry at all. Please take your time. I did not mean to come off as demanding or in a rush! I am just really interested in your opinion. And I liked your vote on my first-ever debate here.
Also, I would be more than happy to return the favor, but you don't seem to have any in voting period at the moment.
Thanks! If you ever succeed please let me know, so I can partake in the festivities 😁
He was GENETICALLY immune to racism? 😂
"Such hatred could be directed against people who wear socks under sandals, and it would still be nearly as awful."
Don't tell them I'm wearing socks under sandals ... I totally am not!
By the way, me and Pilot would be honored if you could cast a quick vote on our debate here:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2854-holocaust-denial-should-be-outlawed-in-the-usa?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=45
I was looking at your profile and I saw you are undefeated for almost a hundred debates (seems to defy statistics), so your vote in particular would mean a lot. I know you probably got a notification already, but perhaps it went unnoticed.
Thanks haha, but it was a joke, I guess it fell flat.
Thanks for the response, I shall do my best to rebut them as soon as I finish the therapy sessions I just signed up for. And the psych-eval after that.
My mistake, I should have clarified that I was referring to the controversy over specifically Hispanic immigration.
"Very few Trump supporters would for instance advocate burning them at the stake because they “broke the law”."
Figuratively speaking, this is more-or-less the case in the southern USA. By figuratively speaking, I mean I have heard people call for the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who return after being deported.
"I imagine undocumented rights are roughly 8 years behind gay rights in the US."
The gay rights movement began in the 1920s. The immigration controversy began in the 1960s. 8 years is I think an excessively conservative estimate.
You make some good points. I will try to respond to a couple, since I'm working on my other debate.
"I’m not a history expert, but the British monarch gave up their power voluntarily I think."
That's somewhat different than abandoning the throne. And their power has been gradually reduced over centuries. They didn't devolve into a political figurehead all at once.
"Germany was extremely impoverished due to the treaty of Versailles, so they would elect anyone to solve their problems, including Hitler. Now, extreme poverty is extremely rare in the US, so it won’t cause the Nazis to get elected, even if their ideology becomes more moderate."
People complain about lots of things in the US, including poverty. Any hardship could be the spark that ignites such a chain of events.
"I haven’t read Mein Kamf and I haven’t read excerpts from it, so I wouldn’t know. But I think your opponent is going to think the book is evil, but that something like the communist manifesto is worse. Regardless, I might vote on it."
Your vote would be appreciated. By the way, I'm already completely certain they are going to use the Bible.
CTRL + F is a powerful thing 😉 I don't think we need to count literally each one, because based on the quantity and quality of the first ones presented, the voters can get a reasonable picture of the whole thing.
All good.
It doesn't let me edit the description since you've accepted, but I will be sure to begin my opening argument by agreeing to your terms.