Michael Lee wrote:
Also, I forgot to mention, that so far I would second
the suggestions Brain Damage, or almost anything by
Pink Floyd or Syd Barrett for that matter,
Christopher Green replied:
Yikes, I almost forgot to mention two of my favorites from one of Syd's
(VERY weird) solo
The July/August issue of the APA Monitor has a couple of articles on
profiling, the polygraph, etc. These might be a good resource for
interested students: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/sleuths.html.
Also, in today's NY Times there is an article about the need to profile
potential
Miguel Roig wrote:
Also, in today's NY Times there is an article about the need to profile
potential terrorists,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/weekinreview/18glas.html
This week a friend sent me this link:
http://tinyurl.com/5on66
It's an article in Women's Wallstreet.com about
hi miguel:
Well, I read it and was bothered by the author's nonscientific use of the word
prove repeatedly. If he is sloppy there, where else is he sloppy? I could
not find a link to any background on him other than he seems to be a staff
writer for the Scientist.
So now my confusion reigns!
I thought the article was
awful -- not because it dissed psychology (Thoth knows I've done that
enough myself) -- but because it deployed such a confused and
sophomoric notion of "science." Sadly, the kind of thing I've come to
expect out of "science journalism." I sent it along to my fMRI-sih
Let's not forget that in the physical sciences, some things can be
proven.
Dr. Bob Wildlbood
Lecturer in Psychology
Indiana University Kokomo
Kokomo, IN 56904-9003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Jul, 2004, at 16:24, Miguel Roig wrote:
BTW, the author's use of 'prove' suggests to me
Dr. Bob Wildblood wrote:
Let's not forget that in the physical sciences, some things can be proven.
Yes, Lord Kelvin certainly thought so when he declared that physics was
complete except for two nagging problems -- the Michaelson-Morely
experiment and the black-body radiation problem. And when
