What is Pseudoscience?

Of all of the whacked out fake Christian pastors in your nazi republican party, Martin Luther King does not readily come to mind.

I am not against faith, I am against faith being hijacked by your party to condone racism and hate.

Your party does not represent the same religion that Martin represented.

Liberation theology versus white supremacist theology...

BIG DIFFERENCE, who do you think you are fooling?

Martin is your straw man you use to divert attention from your Nazi religious freaks.

Still using black men as your scapegoats to hide your nefarious motives.

The Scientific Method is well defined.

1) You start with a question.
2) Then you construct a hypothesis.
3) Then you design an objective experiment to test the hypothesis. And objective experiment is one that defines results that will disprove your hypothesis.
4) Then you run you experiment. If this is serious you publish and get peer review and get independent people to reproduce your experiment.
5) Then you accept the results whether they agree with your ideological bias or not.

This last point (accept the results) is the part that people have the most problem with. Science doesn't follow a political ideology. If you claim that you are science-based, then you need to accept the results of the science even when they contradict what you want to be true.

If you are using science to prove that liberals are always right (or that conservatives are always right), then you are doing it wrong.

I wish I was smart enough to ignore this childish mudslinging. But alas I am not that strong. Here are the facts.

1) I am a registered Democrat. I have never voted for anyone other than a Democrat in any national election. This "your party" nonsense is factually incorrect.

2) My stance is that religion is perfectly compatible with science, and that many important people including Martin Luther King were deeply religious and used their religion as a source of strength. This latter point isn't directly related to science, but it is an important point. There are many examples of religion (including Christianity) having an important positive impact on society.

3) I consider myself a liberal. What other people call me doesn't matter. But factually speaking I agree with liberals on most issues including immigrant rights, health care and civil rights.

4) The conflict on this thread is about liberal extremism. You can support liberal policies and ideas without this ridiculous mudslinging.

You are attacking liberal extremism (which is practically non existent) but not word about republican, in your face with guns, sedition.

You support guns like a card carrying republican.

You are conflicted which is the worst kind of democrat/liberal.

You are here defending religion like a bible belt fundamentalist.

When have you ever spoken against Trump? I have never heard a negative thing ever that you have said about any republican.

Please post examples from your past posts....

I know a lot of people who are still democrats but with a wimpy soft spot for Trump (and their guns).

My point on this thread is about science. Science is based on experiment (not political ideology). This the only relevant point, and the point that no one here wants to discuss. Not even Farmerman is willing to agree on the Scientific Method (which is the basis of science).

That being said I have no trouble taking your silly and irrelevant purity test.

1) I believe that Trump was a horrible president. He was a con-man who used political extremism to gain power at great cost to the social fabric of the country.

2) I suppose I am defending religion. Religion is an important part of culture and history and a bedrock right enshrined in the First Amendment. In addition, I am a multi-culturalist, I believe that respecting and protecting expression of religious belief by any part of society and in any religion is important. On that, I am guilty as charged.

3) Where the hell have I supported guns? I am actually in favor of pretty strict gun control laws, and I personally think the Second Amendment was a mistake.

My point is about science. It seems like you intended this thread to have nothing to do with science.

Well said.

The Second Amendment is being taken out of context.

Aside from progressives who always want to violate our civil liberties for their own enjoyment, how is the Second Amendment being taken out of context?

Why do you think it was a mistake to protect our civil liberties and prevent them from being violated?

https://xkcd.com/435

I am simply stating my opinion.

And I am asking why you have that opinion.

Opposition to civil liberties is strange to me.

I suspect that you don't understand the Second Amendment and would not oppose it if you did understand it.

Well, it is good to know exactly where you stand on these vital issues.

Maybe I will lighten up on you a bit.

I would like to see you more vocal about these particular things.

Anti Trump, serious gun control and religion is fine as long as it is not a facade used to justify hate, racism and extremism.

As for leftist extremists I really can't see your point.

Are you talking about BLM? Black people have legitimate reason to be angry.

And considering the hate and torture that they have endured, I think they have been pretty patient and peaceful in their justified protests.

As a white guy, I stand fully with Black Lives Matter.

I stand firmly against the racist infiltration of our police and that racist culture among police needs to change.

Please provide examples..

And then we can compare your examples of left wing protests with right wing armed extremism and mass shootings.

And then we will see who is laughing.

These issues have zero to do with science. They are all about subjective values. Science can't make any judgment on values.

These issues don't have anything to do with pseudo science either... unless someone is claiming that their position is based on science.

Sociology is a pseudoscience...

Just saying...

Are you serious? LOL!

There are nothing but examples.

If I post them here, hightor will remove them though. I'm not allowed to speak truth. It bothers leftists here when facts and logic are inconvenient for them.

Why did I make this thread?

To talk about psychology as a pseudoscience.

The human mind is the least understood yet we take psychology on face value.

We accept psychology's methods as if they are somehow proven to be right.

You go to a shrink and...

Freud was a cocaine addict... Did his psychology cure him?

Criminal rehabilitation has nearly a zero success rate (lower than prayer).

I think this thread has been very enlightening even if I did not take it where I initially intended.

Izzy has a right to be angry about right wing mass shooters and their dictator presidents who speak nothing but lies.