Which annoys you more, when people use unprovable speculative Psychology or anthropology arguements?

Question

Which annoys you more, when people use unprovable speculative Psychology or anthropology arguements?

Answer 1

Anthropology arguments annoy me more, a lot of very lax minds have wandered into anthropology to the point where it is bereft of rigour.

Take that wicca question, people seem to hold dead people up as wizards with more knowledge than people currently alive.

Answer 2

Neither.  Both are speculative.

You used the word "unprovable" rather than "unproven".  Are you asking whether or not we think any argument using psychological or anthropological theory is invalid because no theory that comes from research in those fields is provable?

Theory is an explanation.  It is an abstraction from evidence.  The more evidence there is for a theory, the more predictive value it has, the stronger it is.  To say something is "only theory" has no strength in and of itself, just as it does not make sense to say that so-and-so's theory proves something.  The evidence is what lends support.  And focused analysis of evidence is what lends credence to theory.

Answer 3

when people smack when they eat.

Answer 4

what annoys me most are people who are easily annoyed by others.  Some kind of complex, if you ask me.

Answer 5

Uh, it's not what pseudo-version of which field are used, but the bogusness of the arguments that annoys me.

Those are by no means the only fields abused to make  bogus speculative arguments. It's the bogusosity, and where they go with it that's the source of annoyance.

You must have asked this because of late toilet training, or simply because of the hunter-gatherer methods of nut-finding, didn't you? :-)

Answer 6

It bothers me more when people use stereotypes and then ask questions about them. Like, why are all women gold diggers. Or why do more women flock to rich men than men with personality? And then they add something like "It just seems like this happens a lot". Um, ok, where? When? Statistics please?

Answer 7

Neither. I read them prolly once and ignore them. I dont want to be hunting for that rare truth/fact from amongst all the BS. The real truth or fact doesnt have the need to be hidden amongst either psychological or anthropological arguments.

Answer 8

The pseudo-psychology arguments annoy me the most.  Not only are they unprovable and speculative, they're usually so far out in left field that it's glaringly obvious that the poster knows nothing whatsoever about psychology.

I really hate wilful ignorance.

Answer 9

Neither really. I glean whatever useful information  I can from both and store the rest for further  scrutiny.

Answer 10

Top contradicotr has just proved herself to be hypocritical. She uses Wicca (my religon) as her example, yet it is only her which makes refernce to wizards. WE don't worship any wizards or witches? She obviously knows absolutely nothing about wicca.

Answer 11

I think there exists pseudo scientific arguments, which can be used in the name almost any assignature. Here, I have heard a lot of arguments saying something is "natural", according biology or chemistry. Only because social science is not based on physics facts that doesn't mean is not science, read Berger y Luckman, his discourse over social construction of reality.

Answer 12

Some psychological and anthropological theory is valid and can  provide a conceptual framework. I don't see it as any less valid as politically correct ideals which are not proven any more valid that mere theory.