ITT sci proves once and for all that psychology is a meme...

ITT sci proves once and for all that psychology is a meme, and that the men of sci are more than simply 'google scholars'.

Daily psychology is pseudoscience bread.

Critically analyse this psychology paper and show the world how psychology is unscientific and one big ugly fallacy.

cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/3/703.full.pdf html

Sockpuppeting and playing the straw man game actually proves you're irrational and illogical and resorting to irrational tactics instead of accepting that formal fallacies are formal fallacies.

It's sad that you don't understand these terms:
- Socratic Method
- Formal Fallacies
- Informal Fallacies
- Ego, Social, Inertia, Denial, Bias Fallacy Subgroups
- Epistemology
- Scientific Method
- Empiricism
- The Problem of Induction
- The Inductive Fallacy
- Bayesian Error
- Dunning Kruger Effect
- Not Even Wrong
- Antipositivism Error
- Falsifiability
- Etc.

You're ignorant. That's ok.
Just learn.

Just trying to get help with an assignment due yesterday :c

Above all else, study Bulverism, Default Thinking and Circular Logic.

Bulverism:
You're wrong and I'll straw man you to prove it. Everything you say is wrong and I'll ignore you and straw man over and over.

Default Thinking:
What I think or what others report is most probably right and doubt is wrong. Everything is a stereotype. Anything I can use to keep believing that is obviously right.

Circular Logic:
I believe I'm right, therefore anything I can use to keep believing XYZ is obviously right.

Stop with this off topic bullshit. Don't accuse OP of being me. Any stop accusing people of logical fallacies. It is antithetical to all rational discourse.

Here you're committing the Fallacy Fallacy by using fallacies as an argument. Fallacies are axioms. Axioms are unproven. Your argument was entirely based on fallacies. Your argument is unproven.

None of what you said is true, and you're using the "fallacy fallacy fallacy" which is common.

Fallacy fallacy, in simple terms, means someone is dismissing just the CONCLUSION, not the IRRATIONAL ARGUMENT that lead to the CONCLUSION.

The fallacy fallacy fallacy is when someone dismissed the IRRATIONAL ARGUMENT for being an IRRATIONAL ARGUMENT [and ignores but doesn't dismiss the CONCLUSION because CORRECT CONCLUSIONS can be argued with IRRATIONAL ARGUMENTS] but is told they are using the fallacy fallacy instead.

There is a huge difference.

You've posted no conclusions, just arguments. All of them were shit. Stop shitposting about fallacies.

Every documented and named formal and informal fallacy has protocol to it.
If they utilize the protocol, then their arguments are guilty of using fallacies.
Pointing out fallacies is never a personal attack.
There is a direct method to discerning fallacies and it's not open to interpretation or belief.
Epistemology is strict.

>Pointing out fallacies is never a personal attack.
It doesn't matter if it's a personal attack or not. It's erosive to discussion and excessively shitposty. It doesn't belong on Veeky Forums and you'd have been punched in the face a dozen or so times by now if you'd tried this shit in person. Stop this before someone decides you're worth the effort it takes to dox.

>You've posted no conclusions, just arguments. All of them were shit. Stop shitposting about fallacies.

Debates, especially Socratic Debates have nothing to do with providing conclusions.
They're about weeding out bullshit so that you're left with remaining possible truths.

If you don't like the weeding out of fallacies and biases, then you're most likely seeking confirmation bias.

The fact you're emotional about surprises me.

If you cut all the crap off, that's a good thing.
Stop complaining about not having all the answers and learn to be rational and accept humility.

you're using the fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy. This is not a fucking game.

>It's erosive to discussion and excessively shitposty.
It's only erosive to irrational beliefs or suppositions.
We're cutting the crust off the turd sandwich.
You want to build a supposition and conclusion off of "wrong", then go ahead.
But don't ask others to give you other answers just because you're wrong and told you're wrong [in method].

Humanity DOESN'T have most of the answers.
Stop using fallacies and stop supporting egotism and the argument from ignorance.

Be rational you faggot.
:D

If you don't apply fallacies to other's counter-arguments correctly, then it's another fallacy.

That's the rules of logic and Epistemology.

Do you need to be taught the rules and laws of Epistemology?

>The fact you're emotional about surprises me.
See: >Why do you keep capitalizing that? Are you one of those coreisall faggots? Did s2k lie to you about the "rules" of "Epistemology"? Is this an elaborate LessWrong troll? You you earnestly believe that you're being anything other than an insufferable cunt right now? Do you comprehend the gravity with which you have contributed absolutely nothing but shitposting to this thread? What belligerent put you here to try to explain "Epistemology" as if it was something worth saying? Exactly which sequence of events led you to Veeky Forums today? And if this is part of your programmed routine, how did you initially find this place?

I've caught each of these types of faggots trying to get people to be belligerent shitheads about using the Socratic method. Literally all three factions are utter and complete assholes with zero remorse. They idolize sociopathy and it sounds like you're dumb enough to let them manipulate you doing their intentionally belligerent dirty work for them.

Go fuck yourself, and smash in the face of whoever put you up to this.

ITT:
Deduction is bad.
Induction is good.
Even though Induction has "The Problem of Induction" and "Inductive Fallacy", and often follows fallacies uses of "It's true till proven wrong" illogic.

Now you're shitposting and ranting incoherently.

No, Formal Fallacy by definition are always wrong.

You have not studied fallacies or Epistemology, and you are a Sophist.

Sophists unreasonable rely on suspicion, argument from report, populism, authoritarianism, the argument from ignorance/silence, and demands.

That's you.

You think people have to prove you wrong by offering alternatives.
That's not how deduction works.

>Now you're shitposting and ranting incoherently.
Unfounded observation, could you prove these observations are accurate?

>No, Formal Fallacy by definition are always wrong.
got any empirical evidence for this statement?

>You have not studied fallacies or Epistemology, and you are a Sophist.
Could you provide some evidence or logical explanation for this?

>
You think people have to prove you wrong by offering alternatives.That's not how deduction works.

the implication is that you know how deduction works, could you prove that you know this, and also prove that deduction exists empirically?

please clarify in future.

>You have not studied fallacies or Epistemology, and you are a Sophist.
>That's you.
These are direct ad hominem, personal attacks. If you want to maintain that calling out fallacies is never a personal attack, you just became a hypocrite by labeling me with the identifier category "Sophist." If it were just about naming off fallacies, there would be no purpose in labeling me as anything, you could just name the fallacy and be done with it. That isn't what you just did. This is clearly attempt to try to make it personal, and to ignore anything I say based on the category you made up (or learned from coreisall, s2k, LessWrong or some other new type of faggot that pulls the same shit).

So fuck off, hypocrite.

No it's not.
I spent a half hour correcting your use of fallacies THEN called you a sophist.

THAT'S NOT AN AD HOMINEM.

Here, since you seem confused about logic.

There has been no sequence of proof.
Only fallacies.

You stated FORMAL FALLACIES aren't always fallacious.
You're wrong.
Just look it up and stop using circular logic.

"its an academic term"
>Argument from authority, authority being the academia.

ITT:
"Any stop accusing people of logical fallacies. It is antithetical to all rational discourse."

"Formal fallacies aren't always wrong"

"You've posted no conclusions"

"Here you're committing the Fallacy Fallacy by using fallacies as an argument. Fallacies are axioms. Axioms are unproven. Your argument was entirely based on fallacies. Your argument is unproven."

This idiot thinks fallacies can be applied to anything and it causes philosophy, logic and fallacies to implode on themselves.

*facepalm*

There are rules. Not everything is a fallacy.
But everything you used was.

A side comment isn't a fallacy.
If I proved your argument irrational THEN commented, then it's not a fallacy.

And even if I did, which I didn't, sticking to dictionary terms isn't an argument from authority, it's called language fundamentalism.

Do you even go to college, because it's clear you haven't graduated because you can't even grasp what FORMAL FALLACIES are.

You misuse terms, misapply concepts, and then cycle in circular logic and sophism.

ITT:
Fallacies aren't fallacies
Pointing out fallacies is fallacious
Fallacies can ignore fallacy boundaries
Deduction is irrational
Logical humility is irrational
Not Even Wrong Though
Etc.

lol

Psychology papers like that which don't even use psychometrics are multi-discipline experiments with a tiny pinch of psychology, I would bet money the people who wrote it are actually trained neuroscientist who just have an easier time getting funding from psyche departments for arbitrary low value experiments.

Almost none of psychiatry and psychology uses psychometrics and they're not practiced in any field.
The majority of neuroscientist reviews of psychiatry call it bunk; there are very few neuropsychiatrists, but the ones that do exist admit there is a lot of bunk to it.
Sorry you haven't been educated on this.
Don't take my word on it.
Evangelos Katsioulis has exposed the dangers of psychiatry, and he's a well respected neuroscientist.

You learned all of that from me in another thread, I was specifically pointing out fraudulent practice related to OP's Psychology journal submission, so I don't know why you would think I don't know all that, but I was just implying that neuroscientists sometimes pretend to be psychologists to get easy money, but its easy to tell because they don't actively use psyche jargon, its just something they handwave in the background about how this might apply to add or depression.

That's not true at all, and you're a narcissist.
I run an psychiatric reform blog.
I also have a degree in epistemology and in psychology.
You have no idea what you're going in about.
The fact you take credit for my education so how delusional you are.
You're a psychotic confabulator if anything, which is common for Veeky Forums.

science is still primitive. mankind is a meme.

Sorry you hadn't been educated on that, but thats just the way it is, but you know already know that because as you said, you have a busy career attempting to debunk yourself in the blogosphere.

More narcissistic nonsense.
You claimed I was educated, but that I was copying you,
Now you're claiming I'm not because you're a bullshiting narcissist.
And I don't debunk myself; people aren't studies you idiot.
I don't even know how illogical people like you survive day to day.
Do you have any skills or education?
I'm just asking. Personal reasons.

>Almost none of psychiatry and psychology uses psychometrics and they're not practiced in any field.
I am confused, you are proud that the psyche schools have produced nothing of long term value or anything helpful to other fields?

I'm anti-psychiatry you idiot.
Why do you PRESUME you're arguing against everyone on Veeky Forums.
Your posts are pseudo-intellectual garbage and are easy to spot.
Leave and never return please.
Veeky Forums is solely for people that study fundamentals, epistemology and structured learning.
Not unstructured narcissism.

>I'm... narcissism
You also say you are proud of your psyche degree and admit your are peddling pseudoscience garbage.

Link your crazy blog or gtfo