|Date: ||Sat, 27 May 2006 17:37:52 +0000|
|Sender: ||"SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>|
|From: ||Ian Whitlock <iw1junk@COMCAST.NET>|
|Subject: ||OT: Resposnse|
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 ...
... 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