More proof science has way too much money invested in it.

[Sneakypete]

TB is definitely perking up - this is the most entertaining thread I've seen in a long time. How long before it moves on to the science of phase cancellation is non-identical cabs?

[blendermassacre]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

looking how viciously the bunch of you all responded to a pair of comments about neither psychology nor science not being used to their full potential, what do you think?

They could have used less money alone just showing us that DOGS could take an interest in touchscreens .

If I may, I'm pretty sure we responded to the assertion that science needs less funding because one study was stupid in your opinion.


And that, likewise, psychology is a hoax.


That's broad strokes for one post, and come on, we need science. Doing poorly, nationally, in math and science isn't a reason to decrease funding towards it. Inversely, we should increase funding for math and science, so that we can grow past the lull between when we were a factory based country and into a modern one with local, tech based jobs, and an uber modern economy.

[blendermassacre]

The thing that I, and most other people don't get is the: "well, I pooped my pants, so I guess I don't need toilet paper ever again..." mentality.

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by Funky Ghost

As in all things generalities and broad sweeps of the brush make for a messy canvas with no real definition. Keep in mind that your experience and even your "buddies" is a very small sample of psychology. There are bad psychologists out there to be sure, but there are also brilliant ones as well. To dismiss an entire field of science from a limited base of knowledge seems ill advised. I've seen a trend in your thought processes. You deal in absolutes. It's either black or white. All bad, or all good. I'm not a psychologist, bet I slept in a Best Western last night.

I'll admit I've been increasingly black/white in my judgements, but I consider them justified when I equate to how many worthwhile psychology articles. And maybe it's MSN, but looking at bears? Really? Thats the best we can do? Last time I checked, MSN was NOT LOLCATS

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by blendermassacre

If I may, I'm pretty sure we responded to the assertion that science needs less funding because one study was stupid in your opinion.


And that, likewise, psychology is a hoax.


That's broad strokes for one post, and come on, we need science. Doing poorly, nationally, in math and science isn't a reason to decrease funding towards it. Inversely, we should increase funding for math and science, so that we can grow past the lull between when we were a factory based country and into a modern one with local, tech based jobs, and an uber modern economy.

Exactly.

If anything we need to put MORE money into the fields of science and math because they are the ones that lead to a prosperous, wealthy, and healthy nation.

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by blendermassacre

If I may, I'm pretty sure we responded to the assertion that science needs less funding because one study was stupid in your opinion.


And that, likewise, psychology is a hoax.


That's broad strokes for one post, and come on, we need science. Doing poorly, nationally, in math and science isn't a reason to decrease funding towards it. Inversely, we should increase funding for math and science, so that we can grow past the lull between when we were a factory based country and into a modern one with local, tech based jobs, and an uber modern economy.

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

[Bloodhammer]

[blendermassacre]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

I like how you're hung up on bears with ipads, after you make the BROADEST GENERALIZATIONS EVER ABOUT SCIENCE.

come on. it's a ****ing bear and an ipad... I'm not saying the study makes sense, I'm just saying that it doesn't mean that science, in general, is broken.

[Funky Ghost]

It's the awakening mind of a young adult. At first they can only grasp absolutes. As their experience grows so will their world and their understanding of it.

Give it a few years and I'm sure they'll come at a topic with a more flexible mindset.

I hope

[blendermassacre]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

so you're saying that if we're going to test bears and how they feel about iPads, we should do it naturally?

I just don't even...

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

Various species of apes will use sticks and rocks to help them hunt for food. That's using technology right there - albeit in its simplest form.

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by blendermassacre

I like how you're hung up on bears with ipads, after you make the BROADEST GENERALIZATIONS EVER ABOUT SCIENCE.

come on. it's a ****ing bear and an ipad... I'm not saying the study makes sense, I'm just saying that it doesn't mean that science, in general, is broken.

well then common sense is, because I'm sure nobody actually found in their heart of hearts they needed to see what in the **** a bear would do with an ipad.

Its a lot of wasted man hours and money capturing and containing an animal that was minding its own ****ing business to see if it likes apple's products or not.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

let's take a little gander at the nature of that which is the bear. Do you think the bear is more concerned with A: standing up on two legs and knocking your head clean off, or B: playing angry birds and counting?

Dunno, angry birds is pretty damned addictive.

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

looking how viciously the bunch of you all responded to a pair of comments about neither psychology nor science not being used to their full potential, what do you think?

They could have used less money alone just showing us that DOGS could take an interest in touchscreens.

That's a question for the funding source. Given the generally insane levels of competition to get funding these days, there will either be:

A) Some sound reasoning to this, and it is just another example of poor scientific 'journalism' (just for a change).

B) Someone with a lot of money and and interest in bears wanted to get some research done

[Funky Ghost]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

Chimps use sticks to get ants from logs. One instance of an "animal" using a tool ( technology ). Humans had zero to do with them figuring it out.

Your turn

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

I'm thinking logically, based off of thousands of years of evolution. When have we ever seen an animal, not forced into interacting with a piece of technology, get up with the direct and absolute intention to use it? Really, how many actual documented cases?

It doesn't take much for a human being to force an animal into a situation where it has to interact with something, let alone a piece of technology.

This sounds familiar, kinda like when I was trying to help my parents use computers

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by Funky Ghost

Chimps use sticks to get ants from logs. One instance of an "animal" using a tool ( technology ). Humans had zero to do with them figuring it out.

Your turn

Oh! Otters also use rocks to crack open clams. Technology, again, right there.

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by Funky Ghost

Chimps use sticks to get ants from logs. One instance of an "animal" using a tool ( technology ). Humans had zero to do with them figuring it out.

Your turn

one fallacy. The stick was not produced. the ipad was. one's intuitive, the other is learned.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

one fallacy. The stick was not produced. the ipad was. one's intuitive, the other is learned.

An ape picking up a stick and using it is no different to joe public picking up an iPad and using it.

Both were produced but in neither case does the end user know how that production occured

[scorpionldr]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

Oh! Otters also use rocks to crack open clams. Technology, again, right there.

once again, intuition vs learning. it's intuitive you can use a rock to slam a clam open. Figuring out how to play angry birds is learned

[Bloodhammer]

Originally Posted by scorpionldr

one fallacy. The stick was not produced. the ipad was. one's intuitive, the other is learned.

Another fallacy:

Just because you don't understand the research, it's stupid.