Discussion 2 Example

Discussion 2 Example Discussion 2 – Coursework Example Discussion Surety for the scientific soundness and empirical support in favor of a treatment is primarily derived from research statistics. Not manypsychological interventions are investigated empirically because their proposers decline to offer them for research under the prevailing paradigms of research (The Australian Psychological Society Ltd., n.d., p. 1). Fact is; â€Å"scientific theories never become facts† (Lutus, 2013). However, application of the theories on particular cases reported in peer-reviewed journals and other publications yields valuable results and conclusions for other users. Intensive programs of behavioral intervention employ a variety of behavioral techniques which have to be changed along with the progress of the child and as the different areas of skill are developed (New York State Department of Health, 1999). Operant conditioning is one of the most used theories in behavioral psychology. One problem with operant conditioning exists in the comprehe nsion and application of the process of learning. Operant conditioning tends to define the whole learning and behavior in terms of the relationship between stimuli and consequences. Such approach is sometimes not suitable for explaining the various kinds of behaviors that the subject exhibits regardless of the stimuli. An alternative to operant conditioning is Real Training. Real Training may be used, for example, in cases when the subject e.g. the dogs have become contentious. It is the approach that imparts a need for the trainer to work with the dog to teach it the expected behavior. â€Å"To a real trainer, the idiosyncratic and unexpected responses any subject can give are the most interesting and potentially the most fruitful events in the training process† (Pryor, n.d.). Unlike operant conditioning, Real Training recognizes difference between just knowing and actual doing. This difference may characterize a contention point instead of a lack of conditioning (Hild, 2011 ). References:Hild, R. (2011). Real Training vs. "Operant Conditioning". Care Dog Training. Retrieved from caredogtraining.com/Articles/realtraining.htm. Lutus, P. (2013). Is Psychology a Science? Retrieved from arachnoid.com/psychology/. New York State Department of Health. (1999, Nov.). Chapter IV (Continued) - Behavioral and Educational Approaches. Retrieved from https://www.health.ny.gov/community/infants_children/early_intervention/disorders/autism/ch4_pt2.htm. Pryor, K. (n.d.). Don’t shoot the dog. Retrieved from papagalibg.com/FilesStore/karen_pryor_-_don_t_shoot_the_dog.pdf. The Australian Psychological Society Ltd. (n.d.). Evidence-based Psychological Interventions in the Treatment of Mental Disorders: A Literature Review. 3rd Edition. Retrieved from https://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Evidence-Based-Psychological-Interventions.pdf. Discussion 2 Example Discussion 2 – Coursework Example Can Science Be Sacred al Affiliation) Can Science Be Sacred? Adam Frank uses a previous experience, where he was coming from a Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) class and headed to the student cafeteria to get a cup of coffee, to explain the relationship between science and the sacred. He attributes his experience to the equations and states that solving the equations indicated a connection between science and the sacred. After noticing oscillations on the coffee’s surface from the ice cream freezer’s motor, he explains the theory of hierophany. Frank, (2012) explains that the relationship between science and the sacred lies in focusing on the experience. When the equations are solved practically, the solutions are understood through the experience. It is this experience that Frank describes as, â€Å"hierophany† (Frank 2012). The coffee cup incident was an experience of the sacred. It was from the incident that Frank extracted, â€Å"the connection, and the usefulness, of the sacred to a world saturated with the fruits of science† (Frank 2012). Science is fundamental to technological advancement; hence a path to discovering the sacred. Frank concludes that science is the gateway to the sacred. It is through science that humanity can focus on the experience that differentiates a religion from the sacred. Frank provides insight to what ought to be considered as religion and as sacred. The article develops an understanding that equations attempt to explain the sacred. In addition, the sacred is depicted to mean natural occurrences. For example, the planetary motion is a natural occurrence. However, the motion can be understood using a set of equations to analyze the movement. The article is clear and succinct on explaining the significance of science to experience the sacred. The article also sheds light as to whether the sacred can exist outside a religion. Faith forms the fundamental component of religion whereas experience is th e fundamental component of sacred. Religion is mainly based on the creed and doctrine of spiritual life. On the other hand, the sacred is the natural occurrences that are not influenced by human behavior, and that can be understood through science. Science cannot explain religion as it does explain the sacred. ReferenceFrank, A. (2012, January 20). Can Science Be Sacred? Retrieved January 30, 2015, from huffingtonpost.com/adam-frank/can-science-besacred_ b_1213082.html