They found that there was a high inter-rater reliability which showed that the diagnosis of phobia is reliable. However they only looked at social phobias and didn’t consider any specific phobias therefore it cannot be generalised meaning that it is low in external validity. Also they only used interviews which means there are issues with self-report data. Social desirability bias could also occur as the participants may act in a certain way to make themselves look better even though it’s not necessarily their true behaviour. The other way of examining reliability is through test re-test, which is
My limiting style I feel is the “Humanistic-Encouraging” way of thinking. My 13 score in the humanistic-encouraging category puts me in the 1 percentile. This is an extremely low score and definably shows me something I need to improve. From the LSI survey, it is true that I can be uncomfortable interacting with others, I can be distant, I lack close relationships, and I can have trouble communicating. People with low score in the Humanistic-Encouraging tend to be detached from relationships and feel uncomfortable simply relating to people in general.
These are some of the reasons why Jacoby thinks that global warming is all just an exaggeration. Jacoby believes that some people like him don’t take global warming as serious because of all the predictions made about “the end of the world” came out to be false. He thinks that global warming is just another exaggerated prediction that isn’t going to be as bad as people are making it seem. Altogether, Jeff Jacoby believes that global warming is just an exaggeration. Both Sharon Begley and Jeff Jacoby contradict one another in their text.
“Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument do not succeed.” Discuss (10 marks) I believe that David Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are insufficient. Hume’s argument is based around two main points, the idea that explaining the parts of the universe is sufficient instead of an explanation of the universe as a whole and that the causal principle is questionable. Hume states that if you can explain the parts of something then you don’t need to explain the process as a whole or that there may not be a cause there for the process in total anyway. For example if there are twenty eggs, Hume states that you can explain the eggs individually and not need to explain the eggs as a whole. However there are flaws here that make Hume’s argument fall apart.
Also, he correlated his evidence, meaning that the correlations he established may not demonstrate cause and effect. For example, Catholic countries have low suicide rates, but this may not be because there is too little integration but because doctors are more likely to lie on the death certificate. Therefore criticising Durkheim again as the data he used was not
In other situations, the consequences for conformity may be higher, for example in smoking. There are no real consequences for conforming to the incorrect line. Therefore you could question whether his results would generalise outside of the research setting. However, Perrin & Spencer (1980) recreated Asch’s study and found that maths and science students conformed in only 1/396 critical
Many people make statements such as “I am lucky to be alive”, “I am so lucky I won”, and “I’m just not lucky” and truly believe that luck is something that is beyond their influence or control. They do not think that any amount of preparation would improve their luck since it is just a random event. Some believe that it is a supernatural force similar to a deity that does as it pleases with no method or reason behind its actions and that we are subject to its whim and desires. I disagree with those schools of thought and find my personal opinion in agreement with Ms. Winfrey’s statement. Merriam-Webster defines luck in many different ways, but two definitions caught my attention were: “the things that happen to a person because of chance” and “success in doing or getting something”.
It is likely that this concept holds some merit if one takes a look at how autism impairs a person’s ability to conceptualize God; and that by inducing the same sort of mental phenomena that occurs within the brain of an autistic person, it should theoretically be possible to stop a person from believing. If, in fact, if it is possible to alter a person’s brain in a way that causes them to no longer believe in God, it would then also be possible to prevent a person from going to heaven as a result of an operation received in the material realm. This poses a difficult scenario to explain for a person of faith. First of all, the argument for an ethereal, amorphous soul that is separate from the brain can be effectively thrown out due to the fact that physically tampering with a
While scientology is not considered a religion on this table, I feel it still lacks things other religions have and believe also that things it claims are facts have been claimed to be wrong through science. I believe it is a sect because they seem to have religious ideas but they also
The purpose of pseudoscience is to provide explanation for occurrences or behaviors that are not scientifically proven. Who is to say what is right or wrong? The average human being uses both science and pseudoscience in their everyday life and it is almost vital to produce a balanced, happy life. An example of this is a person who has a belief in a higher power that runs the universe and provides direction in life. This would be considered pseudoscience because there is no physical proof of a higher