-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is Darwin the greatest scientist ever?
- Thread starter Tieno
- Start date
- Status
DubloSeven
Member
That wouldn't work in Satan's favour though.Cyan said:
Buttchin said:
Why would you need to control every variable in a person (or organism) to run an experiment? And were all variables controlled in the examples you give? Even if we wanted, right now we don't have enough knowledge to control everything that goes on in an organism.
Milgram and Zimbardo's are experiments on social psychology like Asch's conformity experiments were. You put a person in a predetermined situation and see how that person behaves. Be it a mock prison, evaluating (and punishing with shocks) someone else's responses to a test or a room full of people evaluating the length of two lines. If those "unethical" situation you meant are "controlling all variables", does the "ethical" situation does not as well? So if one case is science (because all variables are being controlled as you propose) the other should be as well, no? I don't see the connection between being ethical and being scientific.
The baby Albert case you mention is simply a demonstration of classical conditioning. An unethical one, but a demonstration of a behavior rule (concerning the association of stimuli) that is verified in a wide variety of organisms, humans included. A rule like the ones associated with operant conditioning, that is a set of well defined rules that allow us to make predictions about behaviors, once again, from a wide range of organisms. Other robust phenomena, like stimulus generalization (that is also found in baby Albert's case, when his responses of fear were generalized to new objects) is seen on many different animals, with many different types of stimuli (sounds, light intensity, duration of events, color). Isn't finding these phenomena and rules of behavior doing science? Are the psychologists who try to derive models and mathematical functions to explain (and predict) the behavior of an organism on a specific situation (and afterward empirically test these models) not doing science?
Psychology is a very young science, the knowledge it has is still very much incomplete and has a long way to go; its object of study is very complex, and therefore very hard to study, but progress is being made.
You may doubt the relevance of this kind of work (hey, we've had in this thread people doubting the relevance of the theory of evolution), but you can't say that in the field of Psychology there is not good and serious scientific work being made.
MrPing1000
Member
Kinsey surely. He got bored with moths and decided he'd use science to get laid loads.
perryfarrell
Member
NEwton is da best!!!
A.) I dont doubt the relevance of pscyh and social science as im currently thinking about attempting to get into a psychiatric residency program. Seeing a schizophrenic patient able to function as well as they are able to due to psych research is an outstanding sight.
What i was trying to get at was that the social science have two problems facing them.
B.) many of the experiments that they would like to do and almost need to do fall into the category of being unethical such as those you and i listed for a few reasons (thanks for reminding me about the conformity study). Such as in millgrams experiments people didn't like going through the experience of thinking they had just tortured someone. In baby alberts experiment they didn't desensitize the baby to not be afraid of white fluffy things after the experiment was over. Asch's experiment had a similar call to being called unethical as it put participants in discomfort that they were not informed they would have to endure. While these were all true experiments they would not be allowed today in there performed form. Much like in medicine they aren't allowed t break human bones to see how much force they can withstand before breaking (because the experiment was done by Nazi scientists on jews already and while a true experiment we can all agree its unethical)
C.) The other major problem they have, this is more true of sociology then psychology, is they can't control fairly important variables (genes, behaviors learned, iq, education, socioeconomic status, heck even stuff as silly as the weather can have an affect) which makes them unable to determine a cause and effect relationship between variables. The controlling of every variable minimizes bias and makes the data much easier to interpret. They try to use statistics to counter this biases but it still doesn't change the fact they are pseudoexperiments and even the psych literature itself call them that. And statistics can bring in there own problems when used improperly. I learned about how a study done on medications for treat of Myocardial infarction was rejected by the new england journal of medicine because they needed more analysis of variables in the paper. The authors submitted there revised copies and told the NEJM that they wouldn't resubmit unless it was accepted as it was. Within the stats they caclulated it was shows that the medicines worked better for capricorns compared to leos and was least effective for pisces. (i give them credit for being that ballsy lol)
As i said before they are as close to science as you can actually get without being a "true science" (see chemistry, physics, mathematics) and its due to reasons outside of their control simply because they can't normally do "true experiments". They know in advance there experiments are filled with possible biases but they make due with what they are allowed. This comes with the territory when studying humans as medicinal drugs trials have the same ethical and logistical problems.
Sorry i obviously didnt try to discuss (notice i didnt say counter) every point you made clarifying what i said.
What i was trying to get at was that the social science have two problems facing them.
B.) many of the experiments that they would like to do and almost need to do fall into the category of being unethical such as those you and i listed for a few reasons (thanks for reminding me about the conformity study). Such as in millgrams experiments people didn't like going through the experience of thinking they had just tortured someone. In baby alberts experiment they didn't desensitize the baby to not be afraid of white fluffy things after the experiment was over. Asch's experiment had a similar call to being called unethical as it put participants in discomfort that they were not informed they would have to endure. While these were all true experiments they would not be allowed today in there performed form. Much like in medicine they aren't allowed t break human bones to see how much force they can withstand before breaking (because the experiment was done by Nazi scientists on jews already and while a true experiment we can all agree its unethical)
C.) The other major problem they have, this is more true of sociology then psychology, is they can't control fairly important variables (genes, behaviors learned, iq, education, socioeconomic status, heck even stuff as silly as the weather can have an affect) which makes them unable to determine a cause and effect relationship between variables. The controlling of every variable minimizes bias and makes the data much easier to interpret. They try to use statistics to counter this biases but it still doesn't change the fact they are pseudoexperiments and even the psych literature itself call them that. And statistics can bring in there own problems when used improperly. I learned about how a study done on medications for treat of Myocardial infarction was rejected by the new england journal of medicine because they needed more analysis of variables in the paper. The authors submitted there revised copies and told the NEJM that they wouldn't resubmit unless it was accepted as it was. Within the stats they caclulated it was shows that the medicines worked better for capricorns compared to leos and was least effective for pisces. (i give them credit for being that ballsy lol)
As i said before they are as close to science as you can actually get without being a "true science" (see chemistry, physics, mathematics) and its due to reasons outside of their control simply because they can't normally do "true experiments". They know in advance there experiments are filled with possible biases but they make due with what they are allowed. This comes with the territory when studying humans as medicinal drugs trials have the same ethical and logistical problems.
Sorry i obviously didnt try to discuss (notice i didnt say counter) every point you made clarifying what i said.
Tom_Cody said:
good choices von braun hadnt been talked about yet too i dont think
ElectricBlue187
Member
Newton is the greatest scientist ever. Next is Copernicus. Darwin would be about 9th on my list.
George Washington Carver
A few of his discoveries:
Adhesives
Axle grease
Bleach
Buttermilk
Chili sauce
Fuel briquettes
Linoleum
Meat tenderizer
Metal Polish
Paper
Plastic
Shaving Cream
Shoe polish
Wood stain
Peanut Butter
Shampoo
Milk
Cheese
Mayonnaise
Instant Coffee
Soap
Dyes
Face Powder
Oil
Pickles
Vinegar
Flour
Starch
Molasses
Ink
A few of his discoveries:
Adhesives
Axle grease
Bleach
Buttermilk
Chili sauce
Fuel briquettes
Linoleum
Meat tenderizer
Metal Polish
Paper
Plastic
Shaving Cream
Shoe polish
Wood stain
Peanut Butter
Shampoo
Milk
Cheese
Mayonnaise
Instant Coffee
Soap
Dyes
Face Powder
Oil
Pickles
Vinegar
Flour
Starch
Molasses
Ink
ElectricBlue187
Member
onipex said:
the rest I can believe but
seriously? there's no way he discovered all of these things.
ElectricBlue187 said:
Not my list so I don't know for sure.
http://prism.troy.edu/~rfrierson/class/faculty/carverproject/gwcinventions1.htm
I checked other sources and the list was the same or longer.
Cyan said:
Makes sense since the Bible says to seek all knowledge.
ElectricBlue187
Member
onipex said:
oh he used peanut butter and sweet potatoes to create those things. That makes more sense
The way you wrote it made it sound like he discovered Ink and Paper which of course is impossible
a Master Ninja
Member
Past 1000 years, no contest. What is really hard for me to wrap my head around is how the scientists and mathematicians from thousands of years ago discovered what they did.SoulPlaya said:
I won't go on to the rest because those are OBVIOUSLY not his inventions, just like the ones I listed. In other words, he didn't invent most of the things you've listed. I'm tired of typing everyone of them into google and finding out it wasn't him. Somebody else can do the rest of the list if they so wish...onipex said:
And if I may be so bold, Darwinsim and evolution, for some time, helped "legitimize" racism for generations of people. Thomas Jefferson and many of our forefathers, for instance, were taught scientific racism.Achtius said:
ElectricBlue187
Member
UraMallas said:
we've already established this. He discovered how to make those things out of peanut butter and sweet potatoes
a Master Ninja said:
I recommend reading "A History of Greek Mathematics" by Sir Thomas Heath for some great commentary on what greek mathematitions proved and how they proved it. And his translation and commentary on Euclid's Elements is very good also.
I have a feeling racism needed no more legitimizing back in Darwin's day.
UraMallas said:
If I remember correctly, Darwin believed in monogenism. So no, he didn't legitimize racism. Darwinism, however, may had exacerbate racism since some evolutionist considered different races as distinct species.
It is important to note that Darwinism can or cannot be actually related to Darwin or his work depending on the person who use it.
Edit 1:
KHarvey16 said:
Sorry, by them i meant the fundamentalist.
And I wasn't being serious at all in my previous message that you quoted.Edit 2: Fixed some HORRIBLE GRAMMAR.
ZephyrFate
Banned
No.inner-G said:
Achtius touched on it in his post, I just applied it to the thinking of the times of Thomas Jefferson and when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. A pre-cursor to Eugenics was taught in high-level schooling at the time. So while Jefferson and the other signers of the Declaration were preaching about equality of man, they believed that they were right in discriminating against a lower class of species. Some of them held this belief, not all of them. Basically, it really changed the landscape of the forming American nation. As you could imagine.KHarvey16 said:
I specifficaly said Darwinism and not Darwin. I was backing you up and you attacked me!Achtius said:If I remember correctly, Darwin believed in monogenism. So no, he didn't legitimize racism. Darwinism, however, may contribute exacerbate racism these they thought different race are actually distinct species.
It is important to note that Darwinism can or cannot be actually related to Darwin or his work depending on the person who use it.
Sorry, by them i meant the fundamentalist.
Ela Hadrun
Probably plays more games than you
I hope I'm not the first to mention Aristotle. Seriously. He was such a convincing writer that for OVER A THOUSAND YEARS people still believed the shit that he wrote without testing it, WITHOUT TESTING IT.
That is a badass motherfucking scientist is what.
Also, Mendel is more interesting to me than Darwin. I guess I feel like Darwin got to travel the whole world, finding new forms of life to study and a previously unknown fossil record, whereas Mendel had a pea garden.
I also really like Kepler, because he basically went insane when the data didn't match his vision of the universe.
Edit: WERNER VON BRAUN? Seriously?
That is a badass motherfucking scientist is what.
Also, Mendel is more interesting to me than Darwin. I guess I feel like Darwin got to travel the whole world, finding new forms of life to study and a previously unknown fossil record, whereas Mendel had a pea garden.
I also really like Kepler, because he basically went insane when the data didn't match his vision of the universe.
Edit: WERNER VON BRAUN? Seriously?
DubloSeven
Member
You should read Simon Singh's The Big Bang. It's incredible.a Master Ninja said:
Really, all of it can be attributed to mathematics.
Hitokage said:
fine i nominate both bolraug and haber does that make you happy?
Haber seems to be in a similar position that Nobel was in. Meant his technology for one thing but it was ultimately able to be used in a way he probably didnt intend.
I would also like to mention as an aside that Howard Hughes is not a scientist and can in no real way be considered amongst the "greatest scientists" but has mad a heck of a lot of contributions to it via his companies and the howard hughes medical institute.
just putting it out there for thought
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Lots of great scientists not being mentioned, like this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi
Newton was a giant douche. He was great and all, but he took credit for so much work he didn't do.
Newton was a giant douche. He was great and all, but he took credit for so much work he didn't do.
- Status