User talk:Spectatorbot13

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively here, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did with this edit to User talk:Lizwool. You may wish to read the introduction to editing for more information about Wikipedia. Thank you. ChrischTalk 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Username
You should probably change your username because it ends with "bot". -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't originally intend to make any edits with this account, but nobody complained so far and it has been obvious enough at first glance to everyone that I'm not really a bot, so whatever.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, it's my personal educational message to her and little to do with Wikipedia. I put serious thought into it. Don't disrupt her education. She is extremely used to getting her way and I'm personally not letting her get away with neglecting her son without some responsibility and guilt.--Spectatorbot13 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

behaviour/science
if behaviour is not measurable or analizable, then these guys are liars? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior_analysis

when you talk about null hypothesis, do you know about statistics methodology? There can be different interpretations not only about behaviour, but also about the behaviour of a glaciar, the behaviur of weather, and the behaviour od a machine, and you use the argument that as many conclussions can be dranwn from a behaviour "that does not honor the null hypothesis (?)" therefore neither climatology, nor physics would be sciences according to you.

regarding "finding how the brain ticks". Nobody knows exacly, therefore according to you, nothing related to brain functioning would be a science, cause it's related to something we don't know in detail how it works, self-consciousness is still quite mysterious.

you say "The only way for it to be scientific is to experiment on the brain itself which is not doable for ethical reasons." as if behaviours couldn't be measured. Therefore education is pseudocience for you, and all the medicines that medics don't exactly know how them work (most medicines) are pseudocientific.

(I agree with what you say about diagnosis to control people ans substitute responsability) --201.253.221.193 (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (we can keep talking here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serj198)