this is just a draft,piece,am still workin on the final piece and i will upload in the next few hours,thank you
Here is a concise list of the elements of science:
• The highest priority is given to evidence.
• A theory is an idea supported by evidence.
• A hypothesis is an idea not supported by evidence.
• Evidence must eventually result in a theory that:
o addresses existing evidence.
o generalizes specific cases.
o can be tested using, and potentially be falsified by, evidence.
• An idea with no supporting evidence is assumed to be false (the null hypothesis).
• A field with evidence but no theories is not scientific.
• A field with theories but no evidence is not scientific
For example, psychologists would like to believe their field is a science. Looked at objectively, psychology lacks a unifying, testable theoretical core that can meaningfully govern the behavior of clinical psychologists in the way that physical theory governs the behavior of civil engineers or medical theory governs the behavior of doctors. Because the scientific standing of a field is determined by the central role played by evidence and testable theories, to assess psychology all one need do is look at what therapies are offered by trained, licensed psychologists, and the degree to which those therapies are derived from rigorous, repeatable experimental evidence. (Answers: "anything" and "zero".) This situation is freely acknowledged by qualified people both outside and within the field of psychology, including the president of the American Psychological Association.
Psychologists, on recognizing the true nature of their field, want the imprimatur of science for commercial and self-esteem purposes, so (instead of reforming their field from within) they try to borrow the authority and status they believe lies within science through the expedient of redefining science. In my many debates with psychologists, I have noticed the primary strategy is to...