3 ms·

Not OP, but I believe this because if there is no evidence, we should assume there is no effect. Gendered issues are highly problematic to bias, so it is imper

Not OP, but I believe this because if there is no evidence, we should assume there is no effect. Gendered issues are highly problematic to bias, so it is imperative to redouble the value of force of science.

Oxitendwe 9y ago
What you're really saying is that people should not have opinions or views on things, instead they should have their opinions handed down and dictated to them from on high, by people of a particular social institution (which, as luck would have it, is both almost entirely dominated by people on one side of the cultural/political divide, and also whose value system conflicts with the views expressed by the parent to my post). Even if the product of science really was objective truth (which is quite difficult to argue, especially for the field of psychology) and its interpretations and conclusions from the collected data were not subjective, you have it completely backwards. Do you think scientists don't hold opinions until someone publishes a paper whose conclusion tells them what to believe? Do you think they believe the conclusions of papers are never contested? It's wrong to think that people should not have opinions until science tells them to, people have opinions and then scientists wonder whether they are true. But the product of science isn't objective truth, they are never in a position to dictate to you on high what is objectively true and what isn't, because the conclusions they reach are not objective. The data they collect is arguably objective, but then it is subject to interpretation and integration into man-made ideological and theoretical frameworks, and that process and its product are not objective. That's not to say that the product of science is meaningless, or that any random theory someone comes up with is equal in value to whatever theory is popular among scientists. It certainly becomes difficult to argue against technological progress and experimental evidence, so if someone says something blatantly false then it is these products of science that make it easy for you to disprove their claims. For example, if someone were to say that they don't believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, then you could show them experimental data of the positions of stars when their line of sight to an observer crosses right next to the sun, and then show them how Einstein's model predicts the correct position, and Newton's model does not. This argument, with all the calculation and experimentation involved, is the product of science. Going on Wikipedia, or opening your science textbook, or googling it and seeing that someone with the special title "scientist" has said it, and using that to argue against them, this is not the product of science. That is an argument to authority. It has no value. Using an absence of evidence (as opposed to evidence of absence) to shut down arguments and delegitimize people's experiences has nothing to do with science, and its only purpose (I suspect) is to prevent discussion of things which conflict with your value system.
laumars 9y ago
I've been in the situation where I have been completely burnt out from work and talking to my wife was the best thing I could have done. Not only because she was able to help me emotionally and practically (taking other jobs off my plate which she could help with) but also she learned the signs of when I was stressed so she could support me sooner and more proactively without waiting for me to get to the burnt out stage. Frankly I think my wife would have been more inclined to leave me if I hadn't been open and honest with her because that would have been symptomatic with a failing marriage. Plus even with the best will in the world, it's sometimes hard not to take the stresses of work out on your loved ones when you get home so explaining the situation will at least give your spouse an understanding and hopefully more tolerance with the less desirable moods you might be in when around her. Edit: Sometimes though, she would just drive me to work so I got to spend time with her in the car and chat about fun things rather than stewing about work on my own. This alone helped massively with my mood as it was such a positive way to start the day. I appreciate not all spouses are in the position to help like this. It's one of the few benefits of being married to a school teacher (ie they were off work a lot)

Oxitendwe 9y ago

What you're really saying is that people should not have opinions or views on things, instead they should have their opinions handed down and dictated to them from on high, by people of a particular social institution (which, as luck would have it, is both almost entirely dominated by people on one side of the cultural/political divide, and also whose value system conflicts with the views expressed by the parent to my post). Even if the product of science really was objective truth (which is quite difficult to argue, especially for the field of psychology) and its interpretations and conclusions from the collected data were not subjective, you have it completely backwards. Do you think scientists don't hold opinions until someone publishes a paper whose conclusion tells them what to believe? Do you think they believe the conclusions of papers are never contested? It's wrong to think that people should not have opinions until science tells them to, people have opinions and then scientists wonder whether they are true. But the product of science isn't objective truth, they are never in a position to dictate to you on high what is objectively true and what isn't, because the conclusions they reach are not objective. The data they collect is arguably objective, but then it is subject to interpretation and integration into man-made ideological and theoretical frameworks, and that process and its product are not objective. That's not to say that the product of science is meaningless, or that any random theory someone comes up with is equal in value to whatever theory is popular among scientists. It certainly becomes difficult to argue against technological progress and experimental evidence, so if someone says something blatantly false then it is these products of science that make it easy for you to disprove their claims. For example, if someone were to say that they don't believe in Einstein's theory of relativity, then you could show them experimental data of the positions of stars when their line of sight to an observer crosses right next to the sun, and then show them how Einstein's model predicts the correct position, and Newton's model does not. This argument, with all the calculation and experimentation involved, is the product of science. Going on Wikipedia, or opening your science textbook, or googling it and seeing that someone with the special title "scientist" has said it, and using that to argue against them, this is not the product of science. That is an argument to authority. It has no value. Using an absence of evidence (as opposed to evidence of absence) to shut down arguments and delegitimize people's experiences has nothing to do with science, and its only purpose (I suspect) is to prevent discussion of things which conflict with your value system.

laumars 9y ago

I've been in the situation where I have been completely burnt out from work and talking to my wife was the best thing I could have done. Not only because she was able to help me emotionally and practically (taking other jobs off my plate which she could help with) but also she learned the signs of when I was stressed so she could support me sooner and more proactively without waiting for me to get to the burnt out stage. Frankly I think my wife would have been more inclined to leave me if I hadn't been open and honest with her because that would have been symptomatic with a failing marriage. Plus even with the best will in the world, it's sometimes hard not to take the stresses of work out on your loved ones when you get home so explaining the situation will at least give your spouse an understanding and hopefully more tolerance with the less desirable moods you might be in when around her. Edit: Sometimes though, she would just drive me to work so I got to spend time with her in the car and chat about fun things rather than stewing about work on my own. This alone helped massively with my mood as it was such a positive way to start the day. I appreciate not all spouses are in the position to help like this. It's one of the few benefits of being married to a school teacher (ie they were off work a lot)