Date:         Sat, 27 May 2006 17:37:52 +0000
Reply-To:     iw1junk@COMCAST.NET
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>
Subject:      OT: Resposnse
Comments: cc: Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@gmail.com>

Joe,

Your lead paragraph starts off

>>>>>>>>
Let me see if I can straighten you out a bit and help you get
your head screwed on properly ...
<<<<<<<<

and concludes

>>>>>>>>
... but you should limit yourself to that [SAS programming] and
not try to foist off story-book versions of Science to the
unsuspecting.  The real behavior of real scientist has almost
nothing to do with your obviously lay person caricature.  I'll
say a bit more about that below.
<<<<<<<<

And then later, you do, with

>>>>>>>>
Having endured over ten years in two different doctoral programs
in psychology, I think I know quite a bit about Science.  Enough
to conclude that psychology is not and cannot be a Science ...
<<<<<<<<

We agree that psychology for the most part is not yet a science.

Now my PhD. is in mathematics, which I would not claim as a field of
science, but it is known as the language of science and called the
"Queen of Sciences" by some.

Consequently, I see a glaring contradiction, when you claim to
have some knowledge of science based on the fact that you spent
10 years in pursuing a non-science degree.

Now I have had no formal training in psychology, but I have
enough human/layman's intuition of the subject to see from your
lead paragraph and other messages to SAS-L that, although you may
need serious help, I can not give it, so I will respond no
further.

Ian Whitlock