<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Human error in psychology research: a rough guide</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/13/human-error-in-psychology-research-a-rough-guide/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/13/human-error-in-psychology-research-a-rough-guide/</link>
	<description>Neuroscience and psychology news and views.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 17:03:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: practiCalfMRI</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/13/human-error-in-psychology-research-a-rough-guide/#comment-38421</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[practiCalfMRI]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacks.com/?p=24532#comment-38421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Where psychology interacts with neuroimaging there is a real cost to the problems Yong highlights. It&#039;s quite easy to spend tens of thousands (of a currency of your choice) in a few weeks, then find a fundamental flaw in the experiment. That&#039;s not true of many other scientific endeavors. Thus, in neuroimaging/psych, at least, it is incumbent upon us to fix the problems or we should expect funding agencies to start whittling down our budgets. We all have a horse in this race, like it or not.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where psychology interacts with neuroimaging there is a real cost to the problems Yong highlights. It&#8217;s quite easy to spend tens of thousands (of a currency of your choice) in a few weeks, then find a fundamental flaw in the experiment. That&#8217;s not true of many other scientific endeavors. Thus, in neuroimaging/psych, at least, it is incumbent upon us to fix the problems or we should expect funding agencies to start whittling down our budgets. We all have a horse in this race, like it or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OREALLYNOW</title>
		<link>http://mindhacks.com/2012/10/13/human-error-in-psychology-research-a-rough-guide/#comment-38418</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OREALLYNOW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:48:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindhacks.com/?p=24532#comment-38418</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Of course, the real issue here  is that Psychology is not actually a &quot;science&quot; at all. At best it is a sort of primitive form of Philosophy (or perhaps theology); at worse it is a sort of politicized, quasi-religious myth-making masquerading as actual, empirical  Science-- a conflation which has been the root of much woe in the modern world. In either case, it is a glaring example of both Scientism and pseudo-science.

It is absurd to imagine that the sort of things issues it deals with can be handled by science at all. To imagine otherwise is to not understand what actual science is about.

The fundamental human aspects and values it wishes to describe and &quot;measure&quot; ere not physical at all--they are fundamentally mental, moral and spiritual. They are best approached though philosophy (ethics and metaphysics), religion and, grasped tangentially and obscurely, the arts.

It is one thing to accurately predict the boiling point of water; it is quite another thing to put form certain beliefs, actions or world views as nominative absolutes. Science is valuable precisely because it limits its metaphysical aims. It does not attmpt to describe the meaning of water boiling in the human realm.
Psychologists are not possessed of this sort of humility (or, evidently, common sense, or breadth of education or culture)

The problem with &quot;Physiological Research&quot; is that it is not really research in any scientific sense at all--it should not be taken seriously at all in its current form. It is more like the sort of &quot;research&quot; a novelist of a screen-play author might make, which is to say it is mostly about shoring up fiction with some superficial reference to the external world and Man&#039;s movement through it..]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, the real issue here  is that Psychology is not actually a &#8220;science&#8221; at all. At best it is a sort of primitive form of Philosophy (or perhaps theology); at worse it is a sort of politicized, quasi-religious myth-making masquerading as actual, empirical  Science&#8211; a conflation which has been the root of much woe in the modern world. In either case, it is a glaring example of both Scientism and pseudo-science.</p>
<p>It is absurd to imagine that the sort of things issues it deals with can be handled by science at all. To imagine otherwise is to not understand what actual science is about.</p>
<p>The fundamental human aspects and values it wishes to describe and &#8220;measure&#8221; ere not physical at all&#8211;they are fundamentally mental, moral and spiritual. They are best approached though philosophy (ethics and metaphysics), religion and, grasped tangentially and obscurely, the arts.</p>
<p>It is one thing to accurately predict the boiling point of water; it is quite another thing to put form certain beliefs, actions or world views as nominative absolutes. Science is valuable precisely because it limits its metaphysical aims. It does not attmpt to describe the meaning of water boiling in the human realm.<br />
Psychologists are not possessed of this sort of humility (or, evidently, common sense, or breadth of education or culture)</p>
<p>The problem with &#8220;Physiological Research&#8221; is that it is not really research in any scientific sense at all&#8211;it should not be taken seriously at all in its current form. It is more like the sort of &#8220;research&#8221; a novelist of a screen-play author might make, which is to say it is mostly about shoring up fiction with some superficial reference to the external world and Man&#8217;s movement through it..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
