Pavlov

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Rubiera conditioned to chase after T-mobile on the climbs:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/sep04/tourofbritain/index.php?id=stage2/0365Salvodelli

"Behind, Rubiera went clear of the chase group and was soon joined by
Savoldelli..."

Ewoud Dronkert <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Rubiera conditioned to chase after T-mobile on the climbs:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/sep04/tourofbritain/index.php?id=stage2/0365Salvodelli

Probably more correct to invoke Skinner or Watson than Pavlov in this instance.

-RJ

On 09/03/2004 10:58 AM, in article [email hidden], "gym

gravity said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Rubiera conditioned to chase after T-mobile on the climbs:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2004/sep04/tourofbritain/index.php?id=stage
2/0365Salvodelli

"Behind, Rubiera went clear of the chase group and was soon joined by
Savoldelli..."

.... who just signed for Discovery Channel ... Mebbe Paolo went after Chechu
to get that final confirmation about whether or not he should sign on the
dotted line ...

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Probably more correct to invoke Skinner or Watson than Pavlov in this
instance.

Or <insert your psychology quack here>.

Boyd Speerschneider said:

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Probably more correct to invoke Skinner or Watson than Pavlov in this
instance.

Or <insert your psychology quack here>.

Seem to be pushing your buttons, eh?

Jay Hill <[email hidden]> wrote in news:IFi_c.4472$Wv5.509
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Quoted message said:

Seem to be pushing your buttons, eh?

*yawn*

Boyd Speerschneider <bspeerscREMOVE_ME@ME_TOOyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Probably more correct to invoke Skinner or Watson than Pavlov in this
instance.

Or <insert your psychology quack here>.

Most of my freshmen struggle with the difference between classical and
operant conditioning, too.

I wonder if the Nobel committee thought Pavlov was a quack?

-RJ

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Most of my freshmen struggle with the difference between classical and
operant conditioning, too.

I wonder if the Nobel committee thought Pavlov was a quack?

-RJ

All psychologists are quacks. This is because you can't have a true control
group in an "psychological" experiment comprised of human participants as it
is impossible to limit the variables to one.

Boyd Speerschneider <bspeerscREMOVE_ME@ME_TOOyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Most of my freshmen struggle with the difference between classical and
operant conditioning, too.

I wonder if the Nobel committee thought Pavlov was a quack?

-RJ

All psychologists are quacks. This is because you can't have a true control
group in an "psychological" experiment comprised of human participants as it
is impossible to limit the variables to one.

that's pretty stupid.

medical research is also carried out on human/live subjects, so this
issue doesn't make psych fundamentally different.

and what about people that study the earth, the sun or the solar
system ? are they quacks too because n=1 and the variables are
numerous?

Boyd Speerschneider <bspeerscREMOVE_ME@ME_TOOyahoo.com> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Ronaldo Jeremiah) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Most of my freshmen struggle with the difference between classical and
operant conditioning, too.

I wonder if the Nobel committee thought Pavlov was a quack?

-RJ

All psychologists are quacks. This is because you can't have a true control
group in an "psychological" experiment comprised of human participants as it
is impossible to limit the variables to one.

Damn you. I wish you hadn't enlightened me, cause now, confronted
with this revelatory knowledge, I'm forced to change careers. I can't
believe no one in the 100 year history of psychology ever thought
about that before you - it's amazing.

-RJ, reformed quack

[email hidden] (Amit) wrote in news:df5bdaa0.0409042256.15aaac51
@posting.google.com:

Quoted message said:

that's pretty stupid.
medical research is also carried out on human/live subjects, so this
issue doesn't make psych fundamentally different.

Medical researchers typically have control of at least the physical inputs
the their human/live subjects. To a medical researcher, all other inputs to
the subject is irrelavent.

Most psychologists have absolutely no control over the psychic inputs into
their human/live subjects. To a psychologists, all other inputs to the
subject is irrelavent.

Quoted message said:

and what about people that study the earth, the sun or the solar
system ? are they quacks too because n=1 and the variables are
numerous?

No, but they are a lot more hit and miss when it comes to proving their
theories than the scientists who can utilize the scientific method to its
fullest using control groups.

Boyd Speerschneider said:

[email hidden] (Amit) wrote in
news:df5bdaa0.0409042256.15aaac51 @posting.google.com:

Quoted message said:

that's pretty stupid.
medical research is also carried out on human/live subjects, so this
issue doesn't make psych fundamentally different.

Medical researchers typically have control of at least the physical
inputs the their human/live subjects. To a medical researcher, all
other inputs to the subject is irrelavent.

What makes you think this?

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Medical researchers typically have control of at least the physical
inputs the their human/live subjects. To a medical researcher, all
other inputs to the subject is irrelavent.

What makes you think this?

You're right...
I forgot about aromatherapists and other new age quacks LOL.

Boyd Speerschneider said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Medical researchers typically have control of at least the physical
inputs the their human/live subjects. To a medical researcher, all
other inputs to the subject is irrelavent.

What makes you think this?

You're right...
I forgot about aromatherapists and other new age quacks LOL.

Medical research, like most research, comes in many different flavors.
Lots of studies are purely observational and that's how many hypotheses
get generated. Even in most confirmatory-type research, I don't know of
anyone who seriously thinks that all other inputs to the subject except
the expressly controlled ones are irrelevant.