text:
Stapel also did a study claiming scientists discriminated more if their labs were messy. Really, psychologists can lament they are not taken more seriously but they did little to police their own - until recently. Marc Hauser was forced to resign, Satoshi Kanazawa finally got the ridicule he deserved, and now an investigation shows Stapel committed data fraud in dozens of publications and even 2/3rds of the theses he supervised were 'tainted'.
He has apologized and said he "failed as a scientist" but we have to give him a break on that one; he was never a scientist so he could not have succeeded anyway.
"People are in shock," Gerben van Kleef, a social psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, told Gretchen Vogel at Science. Really? If I take an informal poll of Science 2.0 contributors, no biologist or geologist or physicist is going to be shocked. How are social psychologists surprised by something everyone else knew?
Generally, surveys of students are rubbish anyway but Stapel took it to a whole special level; he didn't even bother to do any. He just made up the results and when he did any surveys at all he still made up the results. It's almost like he was laughing at people in his own field, or maybe he wanted to be the Tiger Woods of Social Psychology fraud and see how much he could get away with.
Why didn't they catch it sooner, even after people raised concern levels? Unlike physics or biology, social psychology is too scientifically fuzzy to say someone is wrong or demand data; if his results weren't replicated, other researchers assumed they were doing something wrong.
Gosh, I hope his study claiming that we use better manners if a wine glass is on the dinner table isn't on the questionable list. I changed my whole life based on that one. Who am I kidding? All of his studies are probably fraudulent. The University of Amsterdam is even going back to his Ph.D. work.
It may seem like this is a real crushing blow for social psychology, like the Catholic church trying to be more liberal and rehabilitating pederasts and getting busted for it, but it is just the opposite - the fact that social psychology is now demanding accountability because junior researchers are blowing the whistle on senior people, no matter how famous they are, is a very good sign.
Related articles
- What Locksmiths Can Teach Us About Reforming Social Psychology
- Nobel Laureate Psychologist Challenges Psychology To Clean Up Its Act
- Dutch Psychologist Diederik Stapel Relinquishes His Ph.D.
- Meat Eaters Are Anti-Social Psychologist Diederik Stapel Sacked
- Psychology Rife with Inaccurate Research Findings
I better stop before people take me seriously!
I almost did take you seriously... :)
I'll start by agreeing that the introspection caused by this is a good thing. Independent of whether his findings were plausible or replicable, people were shocked because Stapel is well known and had many personal connections with others. About the rest of your post, however....
The wine glass finding may or may not be true, but the more general finding that objects in the environment can prime behaviour below the actor's conscious awareness is well established and replicated in dozens, maybe even hundreds, of studies going back three decades. And the wine glass finding might be trivial, if true, but the general finding on priming raises a lot of questions about the nature of consciousness and what it means to have executive control of behaviour.
You've presented no evidence that fraud is more common or likely in social psychology than any other discipline. You've got three anecdotes, where one (Kanazawa) is a sociologist who works at a school of economics and the other (Hauser) who could be called biologist or neuroscentist just as easily. Only Stapel is clearly a social psychologist. But in psychology they teach us that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
You've also presented no evidence that social psychology is any "fuzzier" or less rigorous than biology or physics. (How do you measure "fuzzy" anyway?) Human behaviour is hard to study because is multiply determined. We can't throw people in a tank like a fish, or breed hundreds of generations or them like a fruit flies. People don't sit still waiting to be dug up, like rocks.
To say that social psychologists don't demand data when studies cannot be replicated is false and ignorance on your part. It definitely happens.
"Generally, surveys of students are rubbish anyway." Evidence please? In some cases yes, such as when undergrads and "grown ups" are quite different (e.g., political views). Of course, external validity should always be kept in mind. But but when studying basic human processes why should it matter if the participant is a student or someone else? You write as if psychologists have never considered these issues, which they have.
I agree with everything justinfr said. In addition "survey" makes it sound as if most of (social) psychology studies are actually correlational, this is NOT true. Most studies in social psychology are experiments - they systematically manipulate one or more variables.
Also, I happen to be a vegetarian AND a social psychologist and, no, I did not at any point blindly believe that vegetarians are less aggressive than meat eaters, and I most certainly did never think it likely that meat-eating CAUSES aggression (which of course is a different thing entirely - even if meat-eating and aggression would correlate a causal link would still have to be established). In fact, your classification of all vegetarians (and social psychologists) as anti "real" science is prejudiced and therefore in itself anti science.
That said - there ARE problems in social psychology and in psychology in general. For one, the incredibly high publication pressure leads many scientists to value quantity over quality. In addition - and again at least partially because of the immense time pressure - reviewers are not always as thorough as they should be. Also, we currently lack "big" theories that are well-rooted the available empirical evidence to guide future research. And of course Diederik Stapel's behavior is inexcusable. However, you make it sound as if scientific fraud and a lack of quality control only happen in psychology. This is most certainly NOT the case.
However, you make it sound as if scientific fraud and a lack of quality control only happen in psychology. This is most certainly NOT the case.No, nor do I intend to imply it. But for a field that claims to be science, psychology has a much harder time both keeping out woo and flagging it when it happens. Now, you may be part of the younger generation who expected science and instead found older researchers using psychology as some kind of dodge for popular tripe hypotheses - if so, good for you. The public will regard psychology as a science over time provided it is not simply generating publicity for goofy people who believe we evolved to like a certain car grill.
"How are social psychologists surprised by something everyone else knew? ... Why didn't they catch it sooner, even after people raised concern levels? Unlike physics or biology, social psychology is too scientifically fuzzy to say someone is wrong or demand data; if his results weren't replicated, other researchers assumed they were doing something wrong."
If this were true, there'd be no causa Stapel. I guess this is a case of scientific arrogance as illustrated in this cartoon.
P.S., Hauser's affected papers were in Cognition, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and Science. No social psychology journals. They were also all studies on primates. Should we conclude that "Generally, surveys of primates are rubbish anyway" ?
Really, psychologists can lament they are not taken more seriously but they did little to police their own - until recently. Marc Hauser was forced to resign, Satoshi Kanazawa finally got the ridicule he deserved, and now an investigation shows Stapel committed data fraud in dozens of publications and even 2/3rds of the theses he supervised were 'tainted'.You have now left two comments noting those guys are not social psychologists despite me never claiming they were. Hauser was a professor of psychology so claiming he might be a fuzzy neuroscientist is silly. Kanazawa claims to be an evolutionary psychologist and no one in that field denied his credentials when he was claiming liberals have prettier daughters than conservatives. Outside the London School his other position is in a psychology department.
Your feelings may be hurt than not everyone regards 'the science of feelings' as an actual science, but the solution is not to circle the wagons around these clowns, it is to make the field more scientific. As I noted, the junior researchers did that area a service by expecting there would be science and calling him out for making stuff up.
Okay, I thought you were using Hauser, Kanazawa, and Stapel as anecdotes to malign social psychology specifically but you meant to use them against psychology as a whole. My bad.
Let's be clear that I don't defend those three in any way. Stapel is a fraud, Hauser is definitely shady, and Kanazawa is a crank. I also laud the junior researchers who called out Stapel and Hauser. I think we agree 100% here. But regardless, those three are still just anecdotes. I only take exception to the disparaging tone of your post about psychology as a discipline.
"Make the field more scientific". Mainstream psychologists use the scientific method, proposing hypotheses, running experiments, and developing theory. If you have a case that it's not "actual science" then let's hear it. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should study people?
Engineering is not science either. It's not an insult to tell an engineer that, they know they apply principles of physics but are not scientists. If you talk to any engineer, they will say that makes them better than scientists.
A physicist can tell you where any ball dropped off a building will be each second as it moves toward the ground; what can psychology tell us about a person who jumps off that building? Nothing. Psychologists will just find data and try to match it to a topology. It has value. It is not science.
what about psychophysics? our experiments are reproducible; our (best) theories are quantitative and predictive; and most (if not all) of us consider ourselves psychologists.
there's plenty of other experimental psychology out there, not psychophysics per se, that is of good quality and involves models and theories which are productive, falsifiable, and quantitative (e.g. study of memory).
we also look down on the social psych people, by the way.
Brainpunking is not science. I love watching Apollo Robbins work - he is a mental engineer, much like any person using applied psychology is using scientific principles. But that does not make them scientists. It makes them engineers.
I don't look down on social psych people, I just think a lot of them took an easy road they thought meant science credibility and if neuroscience is in the Dark Ages, psychology is a lot farther back than that.
I ask you the same question; if psychophysics is science, what is the dominant theory all students accept and have had validated, like evolution is in biology?
So science comprises which fields then? Just physics? When I look at the top of this website, why is there a "social sciences" menu (that includes psychology)? Would you consider any study of human behaviour scientific?
Of course psychology can't say anything above a falling object, that's not its scope. But what can physics predict about the behaviour of a person in a specific situation? Nothing. This isn't to say physics isn't important or scientific, just that it has a different scope of inquiry.
Of course psychology can't say anything above a falling object, that's not its scope. But what can physics predict about the behaviour of a person in a specific situation?Are you claiming that psychology can predict "the behavior of a person in a specific situation", in the same way that physics can predict the behavior of a falling object? If so, what are the laws of psychology that allow such a prediction to be made?
I am not saying psychology is not interesting or worthwhile or valuable. In our toolbar we also have mathematics (not science), philosophy (not science), history (not science), education (not science) but - and this is from 5 years of running Science 2.0 - the only people who complain about not being science are the social field. Why do only they complain? It's a mystery of psychology.
If psychology were a science, though, it could tell us why.
Hank, you claimed that mathematics is not a science (as you do on other places of this very interesting site).
But for a "neo-platonist" mathematics is part of the reality (mathematics is discovered, not invented). Therefor mathematics is science (for a neo-platonist).
"You have now left two comments noting those guys are not social psychologists despite me never claiming they were. Hauser was a professor of psychology so claiming he might be a fuzzy neuroscientist is silly. Kanazawa claims to be an evolutionary psychologist and no one in that field denied his credentials when he was claiming liberals have prettier daughters than conservatives. Outside the London School his other position is in a psychology department."
Call them psychologists as opposed to sociologists or neuroscientists if you want, the point is that at best you provided two anecdotes of fraud in the broad domain of psychology/cognitive science. Is there any reason to think that falsifying data is a bigger problem in psychology than in other disciplines?
Every scientific discipline has results that are surprising and counter-intuitive, and every discipline generally trusts in the peer-review process, replication, and academic honesty. For every counter-intuitive, "head-shake" inducing finding that Stapel reported, there are other findings by other researchers that are just as counter-intuitive, but are supported with real data and rigorous research. As in physics or biology, when evidence is provided, the fact that a result is counter-intuitive doesn't make it any less real.
And of course it goes without saying that the junior researchers should be applauded for sticking their necks out.
Is there any reason to think that falsifying data is a bigger problem in psychology than in other disciplines?No, but it's kind of a straw man. I also wouldn't find falsifying data in an astrology journal or a television show about ghost hunting. What they accept as data and then massage it to a theory is the problem.
As noted, people didn't call Stapel on it because they assumed they were doing something wrong when they tried to reproduce his work. There is so little rigor and methodology it was more common to accept that they couldn't reproduce his method than that there was no method at all.
So if you want to say psychology is a science, like biology, what is the theory behind psychology? I don't mean something without exceptions or nuance, I am not trying to paint an unrealistic picture, but what is the theory of psychology that every student learns and accepts and has been validated?
i would say that the general theory of psychology - at least of experimental psychology - is that there is a functional isomorphism between the brain and the mind, that the mind is accessible to observers through behavioral study, and that the brain is accessible through physiological study.
in perception science and psychophysics, this shows up in the relative independence of different perceptual qualities; i.e. behavioral studies can reveal that luminance, contrast, and color are encoded relatively independently (changing one does not change how another is seen), different aspects of spatial structure are encoded separately (scale, orientation, direction of motion, etc.); while physiological studies can show that the brain's responses to these image properties are similarly segregated.
Diederik Stapel was suspended from his position at Tilburg University in the Netherlands in September after three junior researchers reported that they suspected scientific misconduct in his work. Soon after being confronted with the accusations, Stapel reportedly told university officials that some of his papers contained falsified data. The university launched an investigation, as did the University of Groningen and the University of Amsterdam, where Stapel had worked previously.
The Tilburg commission today released an interim report (in Dutch), which includes preliminary results from all three investigations. The investigators found "several dozens of publications" in which fictitious data has been used. Fourteen of the 21 Ph.D. theses Stapel supervised are also tainted, the committee concluded.
At least two earlier groups of whistleblowers had raised questions about Stapel's work, the commission found. No one followed up on their concerns, however. Stapel's fabrications weren't particularly sophisticated, the committee says, and on careful inspection many of the data sets have improbable effect sizes and other statistical irregularities. His colleagues, when they failed to replicate the results, tended to blame themselves, the report says. Among Stapel's colleagues, the description of data as too good to be true "was a heartfelt compliment to his skill and creativity," the report says.
The report recommends that the universities of Groningen and Tilburg look into whether criminal charges are appropriate based on the misuse of research funds and possible harm to Stapel's students resulting from the fraud. The University of Amsterdam, where Stapel did his Ph.D., has apparently not been able to determine whether his thesis was fraudulent or not, in part because some of the original data records were destroyed.This has some pretty huge ramifications doesn't it? Maybe there should be random audit checks done throughout the world, if this much 'scientific' fraud has happened in one place we need to know the extent that data is being falsified in other Universities, and not just in the social sciences, surely all such 'scientific' data and interpretations should be eligible for random audit checks and verification?
As an passionate advocate of science and its methodology you should first clean up your own mess before pointing towards others. In particular, you stubbornly argue that three mentioned cases are all psychologists. So what? What does that mean, scientifically speaking? There you go, it does not mean anything, it is same old cherry-picking practice people use when they want to claim law or regularity based on few individual cases. Also, derogatory ton on subjects of psychological studies illustrates how unscientific in essence your reasoning is; because, for science, there is no trivial problem - science is interested in the nerve system of a Brasilian Frog, gas structure of a distant planet, market bubbles in middle century textile trade, or anything else on this Earth and beyond. We can not be equally interested in all of its subjects, but we can at least respect these interests and scientific endeavor per se because there is no good or bad research subject, there is only good or bad research.
But, most interestingly for me, your post and consequent replies illustrate on its own exactly the point that you are vigorously deny: how important and interesting study of psychology really is. Because from all your discussion about fraud in (social) psychology and its scientific credentials one could not learn much - it is rather unsubstantiated, opinionated, anecdotal account of some events. But it is interesting to see that an obviously intelligent, educated and well versed person would follow his emotions, i.e. his apparent disdain for certain scientific disciplines, and tried to build the case of it being nothing but a total waste of time. And you see, because of this property of human mind to disregard its reason and succumb to the emotions and various motives study of 'the science of feelings' is so immensely fascinating and important at the same time.
And finally, in regards to the lack of predictability in psychology you should just read your posts: I am quite sure that you will see substantial regularity in the substance as well as in the level of arguments, notions, motives, attitudes, values, emotions, word choices, grammatical structures, etc. In other words, it is pretty predictable stuff, notwithstanding pretty wrong indeed;)
What does that mean, scientifically speaking?Three years ago, this would never have happened, which means psychology is emerging from a 25 year morass of "I will believe your woo if you believe mine" and is trying to take back the field from cranks.
As I said, I see the recent scandals as a positive thing.
The rest of your comment is making an emotional argument about why emotions should be studied; I never said they shouldn't. I also think art and music should be studied, but that won't make those science.
Neural Coding and the Basic Law of Psychophysics
In reviewing this, it sounds like gibberish. I'm trying to figure out what is being said, and can't help but walk away with the impression that the net result of all these studies, is to conclude that the sensations are linearly responsive to stimuli. In other words, the harder you rub against something rough, the rougher it feels.
"On the basis of direct observation of power law relations between impulse rates in single neurons and physical intensity, Mountcastle and his colleagues proposed that subjective intensity is linearly related to the neural signal on which it depends..."How is this anything but obvious (albeit couched in exceedingly obscure language)?
"We analyze the steps between a stimulus and the subjective response to it, and we argue that the appropriate test of a neural coding hypothesis is consistency. If there is no consistent relationship between a putative neural coding measure and subjects' reports, then the hypothesis can be rejected; if there is a consistent relationship, it emerges directly in the consistency test whatever it might be (linearity, a logarithmic law, a power law, . . .). We review a series of studies that have used the consistency test to examine the neural coding mechanisms underlying tactile texture perception. The studies eliminate all but a single hypothesis, but, more relevant for the main point of this review, the relationship that emerges is linearity."
Report: Dutch 'Lord of the Data' Forged Dozens of Studies
Thank you for your article. It is good to see fraud being recognized and caught.
I am curious about some of your claims in the comments section. As part of a requirement for science, you seem to suggest that there must be broadly agreed upon theories (for example, evolution with biology). Within social psychology, there are a number of broadly agreed upon theories(as an example, cognitive dissonance theory). If your point is that there should be a single overarching theory that all of a particular discipline stems from, no branch of science meets this requirement. There are efforts in physics to reconcile the different forces and findings to form a grand unified theory and eventually a theory of everything - these do not yet exist. The theory of evolution in biology does not cover biogenesis. A little clarification about what your point is and how it is a requirement of science would be much appreciated!
From what I've learned, the key component in what makes something a science is if it uses the scientific method. By this definition, social psychology is a science - there are falsifiable hypotheses which are proposed and rejected based on empirical data. People are randomly assigned to different conditions, with changes in their responses (sometimes self-reported, sometimes behavioural, sometimes biological or neurological) measured. There is a great deal more than just handing out surveys.
You've also mentioned a focus on analysis rather than prediction as being an issue. Social psychological theories are used to make predictions. There are many factors in what determines people's behaviour, so these predictions work better for predicting how people under different circumstances or with different characteristics will behave on average, rather than with the high level of specificity that you can get with something like chemistry or physics, where there are relatively few factors. Could you explain more about what you mean regarding analysis and not prediction, and how this relates to psychology and science?
Within social psychology, there are a number of broadly agreed upon theories(as an example, cognitive dissonance theory).Holding conflicting ideas simultaneously is uncomfortable? That puts Leon Festinger up there as the psychology equivalent of Newton? Okay, but to the rest of the world that is not a theory.
Psychology is easier to just make stuff up because it lacks methodology. You personally may feel like it is rigorous
From what I've learned, the key component in what makes something a science is if it uses the scientific method.but your definition of being a science as you list it is so arbitrary that making hot chocolate is a science; I predict if I add sugar to chocolate, it will get sweeter. Experiment. Verify. There, it is now just as valid as anything Einstein was able to accomplish?
What you lack in your example is actual predictability.
By this definition, social psychology is a science - there are falsifiable hypotheses which are proposed and rejected based on empirical data. People are randomly assigned to different conditions, with changes in their responses (sometimes self-reported, sometimes behavioural, sometimes biological or neurological) measured.It tells us nothing at all about how people will act. It only tells us how a sample of people did act. That's no more science than economics is.
Thank you for your response.
Cognitive dissonance theory goes beyond the idea that "holding conflicting ideas is uncomfortable" - it is about how that tension is resolved, resulting in changes in people's attitudes, their actions... your comparison is similar to saying "Newton told us that stuff falls when we drop it? That's really not much of a big deal".
Psychology is easier for people to make stuff up because there are more factors that affect people's behaviour. Scientists may "make up" hypotheses, but then these hypotheses are tested. What lack of methodology are you referring to exactly?
Regarding your comment about hot chocolate, that is a great example of empiricism. If we consistently replicated this finding, we could indeed conclude that adding sugar to hot chocolate will make it sweeter. What your example is lacking that both psychology and physics have is theory. We try to develop our understanding of what is going on, and use theories to then make further predictions. This is what happens in science, including psychology - it sounds like you may not be aware of this process occurring in psychology, but it is there.
Finally, psychological theories and findings are used to make predictions, not just retroactively explain what has happened. If you're looking for cases where research and predictions from social psychology have been used in practical ways, you might want to look at the work of Elizabeth Loftus , regarding eye-witness testimony, or Carol Dweck's work on Entity and Incremental theories of intelligence, and how that work has been used to increase students' math grades, or the work that's been done on romantic relationships that can predict the dissolution of those relationships when people are still in their "honeymoon phase". There are huge bodies of work that tackle prejudice and racism, and how to reduce them, determining the factors that enhance and inhibit motivation and willpower, the moral decisions that people make... to name a few. To say that social psychology tells us nothing at all about how people will act doesn't seem to match up with what the field has done.
If psychology wasn't a science able to predict people's behavior, sales people wouldn't use it.
What I'm saying is that
(a) It is true that data are easier made up in noisy methodologies, related to systems that you can't isolate, because the noisier the data (for instance, any rating scales produce is vastly noisier than reaction times) the more you can be unknowingly fooled by your own skewed vision. This is related to process purity and the absence of it, for instance if you use a rating scale, there is much noise and less explanatory power (though there might be predictive power to be obtained from the data), because for one you have no clue as to whether the responses are the result of unconscious processes or conscious ones, and the more you dabble in the latter, the more variance you'll have. Now, science also has expectations. I recall seeing this booklet by Millikan for the oil drop experiment, where at one point he got data he didn't like and scrapped them. The difference is that he didn't like them because hard theory suggested it should be otherwise. And subsequent replications also showed he was right. In psychology, we also expect things based on theory, but there are so many potentially unknown variables that we can try and control, but never fully. In and of itself it's not a problem, but it may make it more prone to seeing what you want to see... A good article on that (w respect to medical science) is here http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and...
(b) However, not all research in social sciences is simply connecting stuff with stuff. It's a slow moving glacier, but there are things that are discovered and that work. PR uses this stuff. It is known how to make people buy bogus products they don't need. It is known how to create this need. Admittedly, we are always talking averages here and nomotetic research, and people, in contrast to particles, have something like a personal history, a continuous logging of information over numerous years that influences their behavior. If one is sceptic, one can say that the only way you would be able to really predict the behavior of one person is if you could trace back every single influence from conception to the present moment. So, Second Foundation is some way off. All we can say is that that Person P has, given a context that resembles that of the experiment, has a chance C of producing behavior B. On a group level, this becomes more predictive of course. Any process in which the individual characteristics play less influence, will be easier to predict. But even on an individual level, there are a number of things. The effect of liking people more who who imitate you without you realizing. If you know this, you can do this. There are techniques. They do not work 100%, but they work. Same with PR and publicity. The fact that not 100% of the variance is explained, is because of influences that your model does not incorporate. Does that make it no science? I don't know. Physics has a model of how particles X should behave. Experiment. One particle x behaves otherwise. Theory not complete. But you wouldn't just say the theory is total bull if it predicts 99.9% of the particles? Hell, there's physics that only works on earth and they worked their way up from there.
What I'm saying is that it is not so simple to dismiss psychology as a science simply because it is psychology. Probably psychology is too broad to be judged as one. Probably Second Foundation is far away. But if prediction is your criterion, there are quite a number of things that can be not just explained but predicted. And even if you cannot isolate the system, the predictions will become more accurate the more we know. Currently the field is simultaneously pushed forward and held back by functional neuroimaging, which, most of the time, is concerned with brain areas correlating to X, and as a consequence has so many functions mapped to, say, the prefrontal cortex, with very little prediction that can be made based on prefrontal cortex activity alone...
But we'll get there. I'm confident that, give it the 2000 years that physics had to crawl out of the idea that the world was hexagonal, psychology will be able to shove your child into a scanner and say, this one should have preferably an environment with these characteristics, and then they will turn out so and so. Ok, maybe it takes 4000 years. So if prediction is all it takes to be science, that's silly because that's just a matter of time.
Science as you describe it, is that part of investigations which is concerned with explaining variance for the full 100%. The more we know about the world, the more this percentage increases. Physics wasn't science 1500 years ago. And I don't think the full field of psychology is, by that account, a science now. But it does show that dividing it in science and non-science is not very productive at all, just as desperately claiming to be a science when you are not is futile. Yet no psychologist would claim that they explain 100% of variance, they just respond to a heap of elitist crap that comes with the science/non-science division.
If psychology wasn't a science able to predict people's behavior, sales people wouldn't use it.Again, this is a fundamental understanding of what science is. Applying knowledge is not science, or your plumber is a scientist. The rest of your comment proceeds farther from this common misconception.
A large part of the problem is that, unlike plumbers and engineers, psychologists refuse to understand what science is and then rationalizing why their gray, movable definitions are okay ("But it does show that dividing it in science and non-science is not very productive at all,") - that means there is no point in having a definition at all. The guy who cooks at the breakfast diner I frequent can now claim to be a psychologist using the same rationales people commenting are using.
Ok, fair enough. I'm new to this -very interesting and funny- blog, so I'm probably asking what you already gave numerous times, for which my apologies. But can you give me then, in one clear sentence, a definition of science, which includes the obvious criteria in which it qualitatively and definitively differs from social "sciences". So that I can stop the fuzziness and move on.
Mind, I'm not trying to prove that psychology is a science (though I think it isn't *yet*). The way I see it, one reason psychology isn't a science is that it works top-down, starting from observable behavior and trying to induce from that putative mechanisms that might cause said behavior, rather than starting from, say, actual known quantifiable brain mechanisms and working up to behavior. I was just picking on the fact that you mention several times "predictions". Which is not something psychology fails to make, nor something that sets it apart from science.
Hank, your counter-point for everyone who is attempting to defend psychology or social psychology is that their definition of "science" is too broad. Of course, just what science does and does not entail has always been contentious, both among scientists themselves and within the domain of the philosophy of science. Pinning down a clear definition is more difficult than you seem to claim. Would you care to provide us with your definition of what science is and does?
You also seem to be comparing psychology to engineering, as an "application of science". But you neglect that the majority of psychological research is theoretical in nature and is not applied in its focus. Certainly it has real-world implications, but so does theoretical physics. Otherwise, the theories couldn't be tested. Criminal profiling, marketing, and counselling are examples of applied psychology. Basic research into human cognition, motivation, emotion, and behavior are not.
Other commenters have already pointed out that psychology (including social psych.) includes controlled experiments, testing of theories, generation of hypotheses, prediction of behaviour based on theory, statistical models, falsification, and peer review. What other aspect to science is there that is not included there? The only other point you've brought up is that psychology may not have a "dominant theory" -- but this is just an outdated Kuhnian vision of science that neglects the mulitiplicity of ways in which science is actually carried out (yes, physics included).
So just to repeat myself, I think the discussion could be moved forward if you were to provide a more coherent definition of just what you think science is.
You also seem to be comparing psychology to engineering, as an "application of science". But you neglect that the majority of psychological research is theoretical in nature and is not applied in its focus.The core issue it matches none of the criteria for a science - it is not based in theory, there is no fundamental theory in psychology - and, like engineering, is primarily applied, like with criminal profiling.
Obviously over time it will become more scientific but that doesn't mean all aspects of it will; physics is a science but the aether is no longer a valid hypothesis nor is the steady state model of the universe. And so psychology may one day be possible as a science. I've yet to see a psychologist who wants to be accountable the way science is - the rationalization is that would be too limiting - but psychologists want to claim science legitimacy regardless. No idea why, but it happens. Some biologists resent not being a hard science like chemistry too. It happens.
So existential-phenomenological psychology is a science just like physics or chemistry? Outside psychology, you will have an impossible time explaining that.
Ok, this broadly answers my question, too. I would still like to see a clean definition though.
But I think we can agree that psychology might move there, but at the actual point it isn't there yet. It will, though. Give it some time. After all, when physics was but 100 years old, it wasn't the fancy stuff yet that gave us electrical shavers, just a bunch of thinkers with a load of conjecture.
What I do think is that for psychology, trying to "be scientific" before it actually is might be detrimental to the starting point for good science, i.e. observation. As a consequence of over-application of "controlled scientific methods", instead of true valid data on human behavior, we have a subset of artificial behaviors that occur predominantly in college freshmen :-)
But I'm positive that Second Foundation is around the corner in a couple of millennia.
Definition of Hank Campbell: Ignorant.
I'll continue to highlight fraud so those people can continue to get booted out and you can continue to support fraud by attacking anyone who seeks to whistleblow it.
"Again, this is a fundamental understanding of what science is. Applying knowledge is not science, or your plumber is a scientist."
I can't understand your way of thinking. Could you explain exactly what the science is according to you? I will try to explain you my way of thinking. The science is based on "applying knowledge". First of all our senses gather information about the reality around us and we apply this knowledge. Without applying knowledge there is no scientific experiment. Don't you think that science attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe? And no matter if you are a plumber, hairdresser, Julia Child or Stapel - you can consider youself a scientist if you perform observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena? Your results could be spectacular or not but the process is indeed the science. That is my point of view now. But maybe I am wrong.
"The core issue it matches none of the criteria for a science - it is not based in theory, there is no fundamental theory in psychology - and, like engineering, is primarily applied, like with criminal profiling. "
It is based in theory derived from observations, experimental, statistical tests, etc.
No, it doesn't have a fundamental theory, but I think there have been good examples of how no science has a fundamental theory that explains and reconciles everything.
Previous posters have already addressed the issue of it being applied. It is not primarily applied.
I don't think anyone has a problem with anyone criticizing Stapel or calling out fraud. The issue is derogating an entire field because of it.
We still have not seen a clear definition of science from you, and your reaction to examples of basic psychological theories have been to trivialize them, just as easily as one could trivialize a theory in physics (see the comment above: "Newton told us that stuff falls when we drop it?").
No, it doesn't have a fundamental theory, but I think there have been good examples of how no science has a fundamental theory that explains and reconciles everything.Yet psychology has no fundamental theory of anything that anyone agrees on so that is a big difference than something like biology, where everyone agrees on evolution and argues about mechanisms.
We still have not seen a clear definition of science from you, and your reaction to examples of basic psychological theories have been to trivialize themThis isn't grade school. The issue truly is that no one in psychology (in these comments anyway) seems to know what science is, so they make up their own definition that happens to match what they have chosen to study. Economists can do the same thing, as can politicians and artists. Still not science
I wrote an article about a fraud and there are a bunch of people whining "We're science, were science!" yet no can be bothered to even use a search engine to find and accept a definition unless it matches their confirmation bias. So, you are right, I haven't bothered to respond to requests for 8 subjective definitions of science which none of you agree with anyway, or you wouldn't be asking.
Hi Hank,
Okay, according to a definition I found using a popular web search engine, science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
So everything that doesn't test explanations and predictions about the universe cannot be called science according to this definition. Hence, doing research on human behavior is not science, only research. Right?
But on the other hand, since you claim that because most of the psychological research is done with students - who are in fact the most eligible test subject for psychological research - the method is flawed since students are a very specific subgroup of humanity and thus results found with students should not necessarily apply for the general population (a point on which I totally agree with you!), I would like to point out, that most research in the "true" scientific fields, that is chemistry, physics, geology and biology, is done on the planet Earth and not on any other planet in the universe and accordingly one cannot necessarily conclude that the results found on the planet Earth apply to the universe in general.
Thus, research in these "true" scientific fields done only on Earth should just be called research and not science, since the findings are limited to the planet Earth and do not test explanations and predictions about the universe as the definition of the term science demands. Obviously most scientists in these fields just assume that the results found on the planet Earth apply to the universe in general without ever having double-checked that assumption.
So if you want to be strict about the usage of the term "science" in reference to psychology, I think you should also admit that most of the research done in physics, chemistry, biology and geology does not fulfill requirements of the definition of science and thus can only be called research and not science. Right?
Essentially science seeks to understand the world according to natural laws. The fundamental question that psychology or sociology or anthropology or economics must ask is, do they help anyone without expertise understand the world better? Right now, they don't. In slapping Stapel, I was not picking on social psychology as much as I was picking on psychologists - and I said at the end I am heartened that the newest generation of psychologists have had enough of two decades of woo in this field and that woo culture and tolerance for silliness is a product of my generation. If you are part of that younger generation of psychologists, demand accountability from everyone, regardless of how popular they are. As the field matures - and the mind is the last great frontier, for sure, so it is not going to happen soon that it becomes a hard science - it will get better. Before the 1850s, all medical doctors were regarded as quacks but Harvard changed that by demanding accountability from anyone who wanted to enter their medical school.
None of Stapel's peers raised a flag about him, younger people did - people he knew, who expected to enter the field and converge on a science understanding of the mind and found instead there are a lot of charlatans. That's a good thing.
People are instead getting hung up on finding ways to make what they do science - a shocking compulsion (or physics envy) given the nature of what psychologists claim to be.
It's funny that you are arguing for the upholding of science, when you yourself make empirical claims that are founded on the thinnest air. I have two objections to what you have said:
1. Experimental psychologists are, in fact, scientists. As long as you are rigorously employing the scientific method, it is considered science--no matter what you are studying. If a psychologist designed an experiment with an independent and dependent variable, proper control groups, proper statistical analysis, and methods that are replicable, then it remains to be seen that he or she is a scientist. It does not matter whether the data have been replicated-- it is still science nevertheless.
2. Having an underlying theory for everything is unnecessary, and it sure does not downplay the reputation of any scientific field. Newton himself admitted that he could not explain gravity, and that it was not necessary to do so. Those who need theories for everything (you seem to be one of those people) might as well throw away their faith in science and take up Christianity. I would never suggest doing this to any rational human being, but 1) I question your rationality and 2) it seems like this move would please your desire to explain everything.
It does not matter whether the data have been replicated-- it is still science nevertheless.and
Having an underlying theory for everything is unnecessaryon part one, I agree null results have value, assuming their is a chance for a real result. The problem is that everyone on the planet is a scientist when the core criterion is " an experiment with an independent and dependent variable". Regarding control groups, well, stop using college student surveys and pretending you can make real controls and studies will get taken seriously.
On part two, I agree an underlying theory of everything is not necessary - everything is a big idea, which is why your statement is a straw man. So is there any valid theory in psychology that is accepted and taught universally? I don't mean a ToE, I mean a ToA.
You seem to be resentful that psychology isn't science even if some experiments are scientific; as I noted in earlier comments psychologists are the only field that have simultaneously allowed woo to be published in journals or online (practically all of Psychology Today, for example) yet then insist it is just as valid as chemistry. Engineers are not scientists simply because they use science methods, nor are psychologists. It isn't a bad thing not to be a science, my whole career was in engineering and not science. It isn't like I said you were a postmodernist or something useless.
The fact that you invoke surveys as the main tool for psychology shows that you have no clue as to what you are arguing against. The most interesting results in social psychology are found in social cognition, where surveys are hardly ever used. Rather, most social psychologists in this sub-field rely on experiments. I will refer you to hundreds of papers if you are not convinced.
Also, to state that everyone makes use of the experimental method of utilizing depend and independent variables is an overestimation of human reasoning. Since when do lay people partake in such methods of discovery?
Your second point is incoherent, so please restate it in different terms.
Engineers do not use science methods. They do not seek to discover anything about nature by way of the scientific method. So you are wrong in that aspect. However, engineers rely on principles discovered by scientists. In this respect, how are psychologists like engineers?
I was turned down, and on contacting the admissions tutor to ascertain why, was told that Psychology is a scientific discipline and I did not have a single science A level to my name, let alone a recent one which would be the required basis for understanding psychology as taught by said University.
"Ah but I have a recent psychology A level", I responded
"But that is not a science " was the reply.
This is a true story.
As an IO Psychology Masters student and an avid proponent of the scientific method, I am at least a little offended by your implication that psychologists are some kind of second class group of academics unworthy and undeserving of the title "scientist" and that we would be better grouped with those losers in the humanities (tongue in cheek; I am aware of the irony of that last comment).
I agree, unsurprisingly, with Eric Garr in that whether or not a discipline can be considered a science is determined by the extent to which we follow the scientific method.
The use of surveys does not make our discipline non-scientific. Making causal conclusions on the basis of cross-sectional data? Sure, that's pseudoscience. But the use of cross-sectional data in it of itself does not constitute non-science. E.g. a strong relationship between perceptions of organizational permissiveness and absenteeism is an empirical finding that can be replicated, disconfirmed etc. and of practical value for organizations.
Undergraduates as a predominant source of data? We are well aware that this is a limitation and thus we do additional field studies so as to obtain converging evidence that lab experiments (which may be excellent in internal validity) also have generalizability to the real world as well.
The fact that "woo" (a term I despise, despite being often used by James Randi whom I most respect) is occasionally published in Social Psychology does not invalidate the entire field. Is it embarrassing? Absolutely. But it seems to me you're using what is otherwise an isolated event to justify your own elitist (mis)perception of an entire field, not caring whatsoever for methodological differences between the various subfields of psyc (e.g. cognitive vs. social research is drastically different).
I am eager to hear your response.
- Joe
thus we do additional field studies so as to obtain converging evidence that lab experiments (which may be excellent in internal validity) also have generalizability to the real world as well.Maybe in your lab. It is easy to find hundreds of studies published in the last few years that are nothing but surveys and conclusions, just data mapped to the topology the researcher wanted. If this were an isolated event, there would be no reason to write about it. I've gone after physics frauds too but the key difference is no physicist rushed to his defense the way psychologists have Stapel, even though everyone knows he is wrong.
an isolated event to justify your own elitist (mis)perception of an entire field, not caring whatsoever for methodological differences between the various subfields of psyc (e.g. cognitive vs. social research is drastically different).So which of these sub-fields, in your estimation (since you lack my "elitist misperception") are not science?


text:
Large Black Pig
The term Large Black Pig is not just a description – it is the registered name of a specific breed of endangered Old World English hog that was once very common.
The Large Black is an orchard pig developed from the black pigs of Devon and Cornwall and the European pigs found in East Anglia. This hardy breed was developed by our ancestors to be raised outdoors, preferring to graze on a variety of grasses and vegetation in open pastures. The Large Black is ideally suited to small farms and sustainable agriculture operations – this is a pig that can produce a quality product for an ever increasing niche market. Thanks to micro-marbling of intra-muscular fat, the Large Black is extremely moist, juicy and flavourful.
Our pigs live well – we do not ring their noses, dock their tails or clip their teeth at birth – there is no need when raised in open pastures.
The Large Black Pig is recognized as a critically endangered species, not only here but worldwide. When pork production became industrialized in the 1950s, this slow-growing foraging breed was not suitable for the close confinement of factory farms. In spite of its docile temperament and exquisite taste, its numbers have dropped to about 200 registered hogs in Canada today.
At Upper Canada Heritage Farm, we are dedicated to the re-establishment of this valuable breed. In 2011, we imported a bloodline from the U.S. to introduce new genetics to Canada's stock of Large Black Pigs.
Lynch Lineback Cattle
Lynch Lineback cattle are a landrace breed, meaning that they are a native breed that has been developed to suit our Canadian climate. They are a triple purpose animal; the cows yield high quality milk, while the steers yield well-marbled meat with a nice flavour. Steers can also be trained as oxen for draft animals.
The Lineback, so named because of a striking white stripe running the length of their back, were brought to the St. Lawrence islands during the 1800s by wealthy British landowners. The Lynch family of Mallorytown, Ontario, purchased several of these cattle and traversed the St. Lawrence River to the mainland. (I believe they actually swam across!)
Lineback cattle were at one time quite numerous in eastern Ontario but as the use of artificial insemination became popular, farmers started to breed their cows to the more popular breeds like Holsteins. However, the Lynch family has continued for generations to keep the breed and help homesteaders to begin their own small herds.
Lynch Linebacks have been bred to perform on forage diets alone and do very well on native pastures. They are a hardy animal that can withstand the cold and thrive on stony or wet pastures.
Robert Lynch's cattle are fed a grass diet with no additives and no growth supplements. The cattle lead a calm and contented life on pasture, which ensures they are rich in Omega 3, conjugated lineolaic acid (CLA) and Vitamin E. When fed on grass, cattle ingest about 15 times more vitamin E per day than they do on a typical commercial diet, and levels in the meat can be between two and three times higher than grain-fed cattle as a result.
In 2016, I am pleased to announce that Upper Canada Heritage Meat will again be using Lynch Lineback steers for our CSA beef.
Lincoln Red Cattle
The Lincoln Red is a slow maturing, traditional British cattle breed introduced to Canada in the early 1900s. Its origins can be traced back to the cattle brought to England by the Vikings. Extremely hardy and easy-care, this low input breed ideally suits the harsh Canadian climate.
From 2009 to 2012, we worked in alliance with John and Lorraine Ashby, owners of Stonehedge Farms and the Lincoln Reds to supply delicious grass fed beef to our CSA customers. Since 2013, we have jointly decided to allow the Ashby's herd to proliferate only.
Ridley Bronze Turkey
In the fall of 2011, Upper Canada Heritage Farm acquired a starter flock of ten Ridley Bronze turkeys. It was our hope to raise enough of these hardy birds to provide a Christmas turkey to each of our CSA members, as well as to distribute starter flocks to other like-minded farmers. We were very successful in encouraging the hens to lay early and we incubated many of the eggs, resulting in a large number of poults.
We faced several challenges in raising the turkeys. We lost 19 to inclement weather (and learned not to trust them to go into their shelter on their own). By mid summer, our remaining turkeys were growing very well and all seemed good – until one week when 5 turkeys died suddenly. An autopsy revealed that they died of liver failure due to a disease called Blackhead. This disease is carried by chickens, but does not overtly affect them. However, turkeys are extremely vulnerable. And there is no cure for the disease.
Hence, we sold our youngest poults, which were still in the brooder and had had no contact to the soil. And we made the difficult decision to end our relationship with the Ridley Bronze, even though our remaining turkeys stayed healthy and continued to grow. Blackhead remains in the soil for many years and we do not want to take the risk.
Partridge Chantecler (a.k.a. Albertan) Chicken
Upper Canada Heritage Farm purchased four Partridge Chantecler chickens in 2009 and they have multiplied well. We turned them over to our friends at Stonehedge Farm in 2011 in order to keep the breed pure (since our farm is scattered with miscellaneous chickens of different breeds that free range and interbreed). The Chantecler is considered a dual purpose breed for eggs and meat.
Of more than 100 different purebred types of poultry worldwide, the Chantecler is the only true Canadian breed, originating in Quebec in the early 1900s. A Trappist monk from Oka developed the breed to suit the Canadian climate, with small combs and wattles to minimize frostbite in winter.
The breed is noted for being calm, gentle, and personable – a quiet dual-purpose bird with an abundance of breast and thigh meat. The chicks grow fast on a low food intake. They are very good layers year round, with an average egg production of 200 a year.
The Chantecler has been nominated to be added to Slow Food's Ark of Taste. In December 1999 the Quebec government officially designated the Chantecler as a provincial heritage animal.
There are an estimated 1500 birds in existence today, most living on small hobby farms with an interest in the preservation of heritage breeds.
Cayuga Ducks
We acquired ten Cayuga Ducks in 2009, but unfortunately, we lost all but two in 2011 to an unknown predator. The remaining two ducks are male.
According to lore, the Cayuga Duck is a breed developed from a pair of wild ducks that a New York State miller caught on his mill pond in 1809. The miller was reported to have pinioned the birds' wings so they could not fly away and they promptly settled into life on his pond in Duchess County. The ducks became popular as a table bird and were noted for their ability to lay numerous eggs. They were named "Cayuga" after the native people of that area. By 1874 the Cayuga duck was accepted into the American Poultry Association's Standard of Perfection.
The Cayuga is an easy bird to keep because it rarely wanders from home. It is not able to fly well because of its heavier body weight compared to smaller breeds of duck.
The Cayuga is recognized as one of the hardiest of the domestic ducks and are easily tamed if hand-raised. They tolerate the harsh winters of the northeast U.S. and Canada and can produce many offspring. The Cayuga averages 7-8 lbs. and has the ability to obtain much of its diet from foraging, when given appropriate areas to explore for food.
The Cayuga duck is listed as Threatened on the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy Conservation Priority List. This means there are fewer than 1,000 breeding birds in the US, with ten or fewer primary breeding flocks, and they are globally endangered.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Price $38.50
Subscription Get this module as a part of an annual subscription.
Tags Live Wires Modules, Modules
Categories Live Wires, NESA Registered Professional Development, STEM
Joanne OrlandoDr Joanne Orlando is a leading expert in the field of children and technology. In particular, her work focuses on the teaching, learning and social effects of children's uses of technology. Joanne examines this focus across all ages (early childhood, primary, high school and young adults) at school, in the home and social spaces.
In this module, you'll examine the role of information technology in a high-quality curriculum for young children. Dr. Joanne Orlando (University of Western Sydney) explores how IT tools can support existing teaching and learning methods, and how incorporating technology can open new opportunities for children and adults to explore together.
The module will provide you with an understanding of:
- how technology can extend the ways children work with, develop and represent their ideas
- how educators can use technology to expand the resources available to support learning, and
- why there are no hard and fast rules for how and when technology should be used in early childhood learning.
Once you've finished the module, you'll be able to download and save:
- your answers to the reflective questions
- a certificate of completion.
Suitable for early childhood education and care workers at all stages of their careers. This module will take an estimated one hour to complete.
Watch the trailer for Technology in Early Childhood below.


text:
Carousel News & Trader--A Sun Valley-based trade mag for the mighty carousel industry--previews a book about Orange County amusement parks that pre-date Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm. Early Amusement Parks of Orange County trades on author and former Disney/Knott's ride operator Richard Harris' lifelong fascination with theme parks and attractions and contains photographs culled from museums, private collections and the Orange County Archives.
Harris does devote plenty of ink to Disneyland, Snott's and the Balboa Fun Zone. But he also covers some places you've almost forgotten about, such as the California Alligator Farm, Lion Country Safari and the recently deceased Movieland Wax Museum. The real gold is the places you have forgotten--if you ever even knew about them--such as the Seal Beach Joy Zone, Japanese Village and Deer Park, and Old MacDonald's Farm.
Interesting facts revealed in the pages of Harris' book include:
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
*Al Anderson, who opened the Balboa Fun Zone in 1936 and operated it through 1972, going into foreclosure after getting sued due to a diving accident off his platform;
*The Seal Beach Joy Zone, which was billed as the Coney Island of the West Coast when it opened in the early 1900s, seeing business decline in the Great Depression before its wooden roller coaster burned down;
*Anaheim, which had a population of 14,000 when Disneyland opened in 1955, seeing 28,000 visitors pass through the turnstiles on opening day, some holding counterfeit tickets.
Early Amusement Parks of Orange County is available through Arcadia Publishing or Amazon for $19.99.


text:
2011 will get off to a flying start for one lucky Borders junior football team, as Southern Sport has again teamed up with The Co-operative Insurance to offer a chance to win a full set of kit.
The high-quality gear is made by Italian sportswear manufacturer Errea and consists of 15 outfield strips and one goalkeeper strip (choose from chest size 32" or 34").
The kit is also pre-numbered and packed into a compact bag that can be easily carried, so your whole side will be ready to hit the pitch straight away.
The Co-operative Insurance sponsors The Co-operative Insurance Cups in Scotland and Northern Ireland and supports grassroots football initiatives throughout the UK. Since the launch of its grassroots programme in 1999 The Co-operative Insurance has supplied children's teams with more than 3,700 sets of kit and 600 sets of equipment and provided football coaching for over 16,500 children.
If you want to give your local team a boost with The Co-operative Insurance, just answer the following question:
How many junior teams have received a set of Co-operative Insurance kit?
And send your entry with name, address, telephone number and the size required (32" or 34" chest - unfortunately we can't do mixed sets) to The Co-operative Insurance Kit competition, The Southern Reporter, The Hermitage, High Street, Selkirk, TD7 4DA by Monday, January 31.
Terms and conditions: entrants must supply a valid contact telephone number and delivery address; no cash alternative will be provided; standard competition rules apply; the editor's decision is final.
The Co-operative Insurance is part of The Co-operative Financial Services which operates through the brands The Co-operative Bank, The Co-operative Insurance, The Co-operative Investments, The Co-operative Asset Management, Britannia, Platform and smile the internet bank.
For more information visit co-operativeinsurance.co.uk


text:
For Immediate Release
Contact: Edwin Gil at 704.868.8690
Renowned Artist and Social Activist Edwin Gil to Kickoff New Exhibition to Celebrate Charlotte's
Charlotte, NC (October 28, 2016) – One of America's premier Latino artists, Edwin Gil, announces his newest
project to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity within the Charlotte community – Diversiview.
"I was tired of the normal art exhibitions where people placed a greater focus on wealth and social standing. To
me, art is more than that; Art is a bridge between cultures that brings communities together," stated Gil. "One of
the main problems in this world is a lack of tolerance. As humans, I feel we need to understand the issues that
surround diversity".
Once a month, Diversiview will come to Charlotte and bring community members together for an enlightening
conversation on diversity. Unlike any other art exhibition to find its way to Charlotte area, Diversiview will provide
attendees with the opportunity to gain further understanding into the diverse community of the Queen City while
admiring the creations of an internationally recognized and award-winning artist. Each month Gil's exhibit will
place the spotlight on one Charlotte area resident who will share their personal insight on diversity.
From interviews with each spotlight resident, Gil will create 11 works of art that will be available for purchase at
each exhibit. Twenty-five percent of the proceeds will go to a charity chosen by the spotlight resident. In addition,
for every 100 pieces of art sold, Gil will donate a Face of Diversity to an organization or school selected by
community volunteers (follow the link to learn more about Gil's Faces of Diversity project).
Diversiview will make its debut on Thursday, November 3rd at 5:30 P.M. at The Ballroom at Quail Hollow on 8514
Park Road and will be free of charge to the public. For the month of November, Gil will showcase his artwork
inspired from an interview with professional ballroom dancer Kristie Monique Simmonds.
To bring Gil's series of artwork into the community environment, future exhibit locations will reflect the distinct
spaces that make up the Charlotte region.
For more information, contact Edwin Gil at 704-868-8690 or email@example.com.
About Edwin Gil
Edwin Gil is an avid social activist and uses his art to bridge cultures and diverse groups living in the U.S. A Colombian
native, Edwin Gil is an award-winning contemporary conceptual artist best known for his vibrant colors and proprietary
paint technique used to achieve depth and movement in his works. Gil combines his studies in Psychology with his
knowledge gained by working with great Colombian artistic masters to find meaning in the ordinary. In doing so, he has
gained international recognition and received several awards like the Premio Nueva Generacion and the Premio Huella
Colombiana en el Exterior. In addition, Gil was named Latino of the Year by Agencia EFE joining a select group of
individuals that include Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Journalist Jorge Ramos.


text:
November 28, 2011
This promo video from the Adirondack Phantoms, the Philadelphia Flyers' AHL affiliate, needed three things to perfectly capture the 1980s MTV aesthetic it's going for: a cameo by Martha Quinn, a model/actress writhing on the hood of a Camaro and/or Thunderbird, and a prolonged sax solo … even if Starship's "We Built This City [On Rock and Roll]" didn't feature one.
But that's just us being grody dweebs. Check out the radical moves and totally tubular lip-syncing as the Phantoms promote their 1980s night to the max:
(Ed. Note: Alas, there are some rights issues with the song that prevent us from embedding it. We hate posts in which we can't embed the clip, but follow the link -- it's worth it.)
This clip was created for Phantoms 1980s Night, which was on Nov. 25. It was a celebration of the hair bands that visited the Glens Falls Civic Center, and a time when hockey was apparently played without goaltenders (based on the stats we've seen).
Number 19 in your programs, and now No. 1 in your hearts, is center Luke Pither(notes), who may or may not be channeling Thomas Jane from "Boogie Nights."
"The guys were great. Luke Pither was the star of the video. We went to him and asked him who he thought would work best," said Matt Valinski, director of marketing.
He drafted forward Jason Akeson(notes), defenseman Kevin Marshall(notes) and forward Tye McGinn(notes) for the shoot. Valinski said all of them took to it well, and needed little choreography. "For a lot of the dancing, the guys would say 'Alright, you just want me looking at the camera and moving, right?'" he said.
Kevin Marshall (No. 4), called up to the Flyers in the wake of Chris Pronger's(notes) injury, seems to have mastered the sensual sway of Robert Palmer's overly made-up backup band; yet, at the end, he's gone all Wham! on us.
Then there's the scene in which the players attempt to outrun a space-time warp tunnel and then disappear. Which is actually how waivers work.
The scene with the tumbling dice and the players running in place? Inspired by the classic Starship video, according to Valinski: "In the actual video, for reasons unknown to me, there are people being run down by a giant pair of dice."
Oh yeah, about that 1980s-style Whitesnake move with the girl on the hood of the car? Turns out their mascot has that covered:
Thanks to Phantoms for giving the world this video. You may not be the Belfast Giants. But the Belfast Giants also didn't have such amazing special effects. (My god, his head has descended from the ceiling, where he was no doubt dancing!)
The big question: Will there be a holiday offering from the Phantoms?
"We are planning on doing a Christmas video," said Valinski.
s/t to Tim McManus of the Glens Falls Post-Star for the find.
Gary Bettman's unlikely musical tastes
Posted Jun 21 2012
Yakupov says he's ready for NHL
Posted Jun 25 2012
Canada's Stanley Cup curse explained
Posted Jun 21 2012
Edited By Doug Farrar
Edited By 'Duk
Edited By Kelly Dwyer
Edited By Greg Wyshynski
Edited By Matt Hinton
Edited By Jeff Eisenberg
Edited By Jay Busbee
Edited By Jay Busbee
Edited By Steve Cofield
Edited By Chris Chase
Edited By Chris Chase
Edited By Brooks Peck
Edited By Andy Behrens
Edited By Cameron Smith
Edited By Mark J. Miller


text:
It is unsurprising, of course, to see that Mark Kleiman is mindlessly parroting the lines of the Obama Administration, but one wishes that he would get the facts before trying to be the Administration's Most Valuable Political Hack. Notwithstanding Kleiman's attempts to popularize David Axelrod's efforts to make the Chamber prove a negative, the facts simply are not on the Obama Administration's side. And of course, it is worth noting anew that if Mark Kleiman really is concerned about foreign money potentially influencing the outcome of American elections, he would have raised a hue and cry over the Obama campaign's fundraising setup in 2008. But as anyone familiar with Kleiman knows, he is not the type to be intellectually honest.
For intellectual honesty on this issue, one turns to the likes of Michael Barone, who–unlike Kleiman–cares deeply about getting the facts right. More debunking of weak White House/Kleimanian spin can be found here, and here. And to be fair to the Democrats, some of them realize that the White House/Kleiman stance on this issue is both politically stupid, and utterly non-reality-based.


text:
|with graphics
|How to Order Books
To order a book
from Amazon.com:
1) Locate the book listing in EmpowermentBooks.com. (You have over 24 categories of books to choose from.)
2) Click on the book's title.
3) Read the review, if any, provided by Amazon.com. If you're interested in the book, go ahead and add it to your online shopping cart now. (This places you under no financial obligation and Amazon.com's computer will remember your selection later if you don't purchase it today. You can either purchase it or remove it from your online shopping cart at any time.) Then, unless you're finished shopping, use the "back" button to return from Amazon.com to this online bookstore.
4) Select View Your Shopping Cart at any time to review or change the books in your online shopping cart.
5) When you're ready to purchase the books in your online shopping cart, select the option and follow the steps provided by Amazon.com, which handles the actual ordering, shipping, and billing. You can phone in your credit card number after placing your online order or use their secure server. Your satisfaction is guaranteed, and if you are not satisfied with any book for any reason, you can return it within 30 days in its original condition for a full refund.
EmpowermentBooks.com offers over 500 top-quality empowerment resource books and over 80 links on over 24 topics related to personal growth, social change, and ecology. These books have been selected because they can help empower you by giving you the knowledge, skills, and inspiration that you can use to take charge of and improve or transform your own life and, if you so choose, to collectively organize, take charge of, and transform society.
I've put a lifetime of knowledge into selecting these books, and I think you'll find some books that you're interested in. I also welcome your suggestions, assistance, and/or donations. I am especially interested in hearing about and/or receiving a copy of good books that I can add to this online bookstore.
View Your Shopping Cart Customer Service
Suggest additional books Home
Copyright © 1997-2000 by EmpowermentResources.com. All rights reserved.


text:
Caspian Technosys has a strong knowledge base and great experience is the success to the client satisfaction. We work predominantly on .NET, Web designing and PHP technologies. Apart from project development, Search Engine Marketing (SEM) and Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is one of our niche areas.
To Apply:
To Apply for this Internships just send your CV to firstname.lastname@example.com
Job description: Candidate should be responsible to get the projects related to websites and software applications and also responsible to develop business in an upcoming portal which includes search engine, classifieds, news and job portal and initially the company provides training and leads to boast-up the executives.
Business Development Executives:
- Leads Generation
- Business generation from the leads
- Clients Follow ups.
- Clients Interaction
- Candidate will also be responsible to develop business in the areas of upcoming portals and related to other projects assigned by the concern department.
Initially the company gives the proper training on the products and provides training on soft and communication skills. We assist the executives by generating leads and help them in continuous improvement. We always provide positive feedback to the candidates regarding their performance and nominate members who have performed well for rewards programmes.
Note: stipend will be provided to the right candidate while achieving the minimum targets and for fulltime and part-timers the salary based completely on the performance level.
Duration: Min 1 month – Max 6 months
Fees: 5000/-
Projects are listed below:
1. Recruitment and selection methods:
Description: sourcing, screening and validation of the resumes through job-portals, personal and professional network as per the given requirement. Scheduling the initial interview date and time and interview co-ordination. Maintain the candidate's database for the future requirements. The Objective of selection process is to choose the individual who can successfully perform the job from the pool of qualified candidates.
- Source resume from the job-portals
- Screening resume
- Line-up candidates and arrange telephonic interviews.
- Duration: 30-45 days
- Fees: 5000/-
2. Employee relationship and survey:
Description: The human resource department where the people of different criteria in the organization meet with the people and concerned about their problems needs. Where these people manage all the things with regards to the organization, especially the employees in the organization. They are not only the heart of the organization but also the key elements. Since the scope of the human resource is very broad and its role changes from the organization to organization.
Whenever the employee step into the organization he contribute something and expects monitory, non monitory and more satisfaction. Both the employer and employee is involved in the satisfaction which is driven within the employee. And for the welfare of the employee and the organization the study of the Employee relationship and survey is crucial. It is also considered as to be one of the critical success factors.
- Building relationship with employees
- Maintain balance between the management and employee
- Solving problems
- Providing alternative solutions
- Duration: 30-45 days
- Fees: 5000/-
3. Welfare Measures:
Description: Welfare means "Doing well". It also referred to as betterment of work for employees, related to taking care of well-being of work of employers, agencies. To meet different employees to study the different types of welfare measures to know about employee satisfaction with reference to employee welfare measures in the organization.
- Building effective relationships
- Understanding the needs
- Providing the solutions
- Duration: 30-45 days
- Fees: 5000/-
Note: Candidates will be provided with initial training on the projects selected and given Internship certificate. Right candidates will have an opportunity to become an employee of the company assign the work on the upcoming job-portals.
Contact Details:
Contact Person: Suman HR(DEPT)
Desk No: 040 39103136
Mobile: 09849706399


text:
In "The Necklace" if Mme. Loisel didn't lose the necklace what would happen?
- print Print
- list Cite
If Mathilde Loisel did not lose the necklace nothing would have changed for her. She would have gone on being poor and miserable, longing for more.
Mathilde feels like she should be rich, even though she was born into a poor family and married a poor man.
She had no gowns, no jewels, nothing. And she loved nothing but that. She felt made for that. She would have liked so much to please, to be envied, to be charming, to be sought after. (p. 1)
Mathilde thinks of nothing but the material. Although she has a loving husband and a comfortable life, she is not satisfied. She wants more. It is because she wants more that she borrows the necklace from her friend to go to the ball.
Mathilde has a good time at the ball, but like Cinderella, she has to go back to reality sometime. When she leaves the ball, she symbolically returns to the life of poverty she has always known.
He threw over her shoulders the wraps he had brought, the modest wraps of common life, the poverty of which contrasted with the elegance of the ball dress. (p. 4)
If she had not lost the necklace, she would have returned it and continued in her relatively comfortable life. She would have remained beautiful for years afterward. She might even have found out that the jewel was a fake when she returned it. Yet because she lost the necklace, she lost everything else too. Her husband, her beauty, and her friendship all diminished from her greed.


text:
By Rachel Gan
Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked.
"Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire Cat.
"I don't know," Alice answered.
"Then," said the Cat, "it doesn't matter."
– Alice in Wonderland
Choice is overrated. The modern person prides themselves on an abundance of options, as variety is what defines the mental image of wealth. The freedom to choose is an emblem of power, rather than it's reality, which is a psychological enslavement to ideas about fate and inevitabilities of circumstance. Rather than liberating us, the proliferation of choice induces a paralysis in indecision.
We all want to make the "right" decision. We're trained to think there is a "right" decision to make, whether it's religious doctrine or social conditioning or simply "making our parents proud." There is "right" and it exists as the collective opinion of those around us. For all we really know, when we're making the "right" choice, we're serving someone else, or keeping ourselves farther from our intended goal so consumerism thrives and fear prevails.
Imagine a meal. There are sides, different breads, different meats, different drinks. In math, we understand that this is calculated in permutations and combinations, another option increases possibility exponentially. So we delay, we postpone, we renegotiate thoughts and plans and weigh every minute facet of every permutation. We draw up lists, complicated tables and percentage preferences and we try and try, we try to get as close as possible, to choose right.
This is what happens when we choose. We are excited. We are afraid. In stories, you always hear the "fairy tale," the "happily ever after," which is the epitome of "the right choice."
In the process of seeking it, we contort reality. We forget, or rather choose to overlook, ordinary people and ordinary feelings.
With more options, the opportunity cost is greater, you have more to lose. And so you lose that great sense of satisfaction in deciding. Because there can never be the right decision. The ball drops, there is no right choice all there will be are the alternative realities that will haunt you. every path not taken is the birth of regret.
We mask it behind exhilaration and speculation, attribute it to coincidence and fate. But the adrenaline rush, that fine line between excitement and terror that gives us butterflies on roller coasters is not a line at all. we are never truly definitely in one state or another but in a constant flux between anticipation and utter panic.
So when we choose, we don't actually choose because we don't actually know. We don't know anything. We don't know if this is the right choice, if this will lead to something if anything, if this will be different, if this will be better. There is nothing inherent in the choices that necessarily guarantee the result of an expectation. We do not know. We do not know what we do not know. We live in a stasis of fear, where we are paralyzed by doubt.
It is how we live with this fear, in spite of this fear, that will determine – how we choose.


text:
If you have any additional questions please feel free to phone or email us.
When should I contact Paper Elephant Press?
We suggest you take into account the lead time required for your event, for example a week or two prior to when your caterers/venue require final numbers is a good guide for your RSVP date. At a minimum it is best to allow 3-6 weeks for the design process (a gallery based design is generally quicker to turn around in under 3 weeks. than a complete custom design that may take up to 6 weeks), we then require 4-5 weeks for printing. But the sooner you contact us the better, good things take time, so the more time allowable the happier you will be with the final product. Note: wedding invitations are usually sent 6-8 weeks prior to the wedding date.
Can you match my fabric colours?
Definitely! Just send us a swatch of the fabric (or whatever it may be, we have even colour matched to straws) and we will get back to you with a suggestion for colours.
Can you help with the wording?
Of course, invitation wording can be very confusing: traditional, modern, relaxed, formal. There are so many options to consider. Let us make it easy for you.
Can you personalise invitations?
The letterpress process does not lend itself to individualised invitations, although it can be done it tends to be cost prohibitive for most budgets. However, flat printing printing can be possible on some stocks if this is an option you have your heart set on. Another option is belly bands or name tags wrapped around your invitation. Talk to us about it during the briefing process.
How much does it cost?
Each order is unique, so we like to ensure that we quote on only the things you require. Contact us today and we can give you a comprehensive and itemised estimate to suit your requirements.
Can we visit your studio?
Unfortunately we do not allow studio visits and deal with 99% of our clients via emails and phone calls. If you feel the need to meet in person please discuss this with us to see if we can arrange a meeting.
I have artwork that I would like to use, can you print it?
Most definitely. You can find detailed specifications here.
I love letterpress but I am on a budget, can I still use letterpress?
Although we realise letterpress can be a more expensive option there are ways to keep costs down, for example printing in a single colour, using coloured envelopes or liners to add colour. We can also design a suite using a combination of letterpress and flat printed pieces to produce a cohesive look with a lower final cost. There are a number of options, ask us for more ideas when you contact us for a quote.
Can you print on both sides of the stock?
It can all depend upon your choice of stock and whether you are looking for a traditional 'kiss' impression or a 'deep' impression. A deep impression can cause show through on the opposite side if the stock is thinner. A heavy weight stock is best for this option.
We are running a little behind, can you print my order quicker?
We understand that sometimes emergencies occur and we can offer a faster turnaround, however it is subject to availability within our studio schedule may incur an additional 'rush' fee.
Is there a minimum order required?
Although we don't have a set minimum, due to the cost of plates and set-up for letterpress printing we suggest quantities of 50 and over to be more cost effective.
Can I change my order?
It is dependent upon the change required and where we are currently in the ordering process, call us as soon as possible to discuss your changes.
Can I cancel my order?
It is dependent on where are currently in the ordering process. Please call us to discuss immediately. Paper Elephant reserves the right to retain a minimum cancellation fee of 20% of the invoice if the order is cancelled prior to design development and approval. If an order is cancelled after final proof approval, Paper Elephant reserve the right to retain all monies paid so far.
Is letterpress printing eco-friendly?
We are committed to keeping our processes and products as eco-friendly as possible. Our preferred paper is made from cotton fibres, a waste by-product of the cotton industry that would otherwise be sent to landfill. Cotton paper making processes use less chemicals than traditional wood-pulp paper. We also prefer environmentally responsible socks for our flat printing.
Can you ship orders outside of Australia?
Most definitely, contact us to discuss your project.
What types of payment do you accept?
We gladly accept payment via direct deposit, we can also accept credit card payments via Paypal with prior arrangement.
What is your privacy policy?
We take your privacy very seriously. We are committed to your privacy and security, we would never sell, rent or distribute your personal information for any reason to third (fourth or fifth) parties. Any information we request is purely used to serve the needs of our customers.


text:
Discussion in 'Prevx Releases' started by Tarnak, Oct 20, 2012.
As a beta tester, I have wondered how often it is advisable to reset.
IMO you don't need to.
Thanks! That makes me feel better.
I wonder what the contingency plan is for the GUI if the system events stats far exceeds what can be displayed. In Tarnak's case he is showing over 525 billion at the moment; when that number gets higher and higher, there mightn't be room to show it?
Edit: just thought that billion could be replaced by trillion perhaps?
It will be replaced with trillion I haven't yet seen anyone break the trillion barrier but we should start having other users post here for how many events they have!
(To answer the OP - you won't ever need to reset protection statistics; the only reason that there is a button there at all is because a user here requested it a while ago )
Thanks for the clarification I knew there was a good reason.
We haven't added quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, decillion, ..., googol, or googolplex to the Protection Statistics screen so there is a possibility of it running off screen in a few millennia, but let me know if anyone gets there and I'll add it
googolplex = Need a new PC or 2 by then.
Separate names with a comma.


text:
We are looking for MSc and PhD candidates who will work in a large scale research project on the development of low emission diesel engine components with industry collaboration. The research will be in the following fields: fluid mechanics, control systems, material science and production technologies. Candidates should have engineering degree from the departments of mechanical, elctrical & electronical, mechatronics
MSc. or PhD. Positions in Computational Science oriented Graduate Program at Ozyegin University in Istanbul
Modeling and simulation are an indispensible part of today's modern engineering practice. At Ozyegin University in Istanbul we develop algorithms and modeling techniques for the design, analysis and improvement of the complex processes in real engineering applications.
Deadline : 26 January 2018
Deadline : 31 January 2018
Deadline : 8 February 2018
Deadline : 15 February 2018
Deadline : 28 February 2018
Deadline : 28 February 2018
Deadline : 1 March 2018
Deadline : 1 April 2018


text:
In the woodworking operation, machines are specially employed to cast the desired dimension or shape from wood work piece. RS Wood working machines have established and transferred the company with more modern facilities. The woodworking combined machines tend to offer professional woodworking even for a non trained worker. You should also know that working with these machines will never compromised with the quality while these are offered at the cost effective prices. These modern machines being all in one unit also incorporate many different functions so that one can perfectly engage in working of solid panels and woods.
Know about some popular forms of woodworking machines
With the years of experience, the manufactures in the sector of woodworking, constantly control and monitor the whole working process by dealing with the making, designing and selling of the machineries. The different kinds of woodworking machines are also employed in the industries and workshops for the various tasks like wood grinding, drilling, shaping, cutting and finishing including many more. There are some of the popular forms like thickness or surface planner, chisel or chain mortiser, jig saw, tenoning machine and grinding or grinder machine. Combination machines mainly feature planner table lift that allows a clear access to thicknesses with electrical interlock with lower noise level.
Different types of woodworking machines designs
- Vertical cutters and circular saws are mainly used for squaring different sized panels.
- Thickness and planer are used in solid serving for the planning. The planer mainly consists of mounted cutting knives and rotating cutter heads. The surface planning and thickness enables you to have wood of your desired thickness.
- Buttonhole and drilling machines are mainly used to produce the slot or the hole in the solid in the second phase of wood processing.


text: Desmond, Have you inquired at the dealership about obtaining their UrQ service manuals. Or perhaps they know where to get one. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "desmond auld" <desauld at hotmail.com> To: <quattro at audifans.com>; <urq at audifans.com>; <es2 at audifans.com>; <Audi20V_Kruemmer at egroups.com>; <seiche at shadetreesoftware.com>; <bklumper at mdbworld.com>; <jim_haseltine at ntlworld.com>; <tlum at flash.net> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:37 PM Subject: ABY wireing for URQ > Thanks all for your feed back on the Aby to URQ wiring and conversion. The > www.s2forum web site has some very good diagrams for the aby/adu engine side > loom and ecu. I am relatively happy with those diagrams and hopefully that > side should go well. > > What I plan on doing is to get everything connected and mocked up on the > floor and get the engine running there. Then I can check with vag com that > all sensors are ok and I have no fault codes bugs. This is the way I got my > tdi engine running in my A2 golf. The tdi has lots more wires than the ABY > as it has a drive by wire throttle, electronic fuel pump etc, etc, so wiring > doesn't scare me. And im also an electronic engineer. > > > The only problems I can see is on the 84 WR side. As it's an 84, then it is > even worse than other URQ's as it is more of a miss match or wires, and > looms etc. I haven't looked much at the URQ wiring yet, but on first > inspection it isn't great. There are wires spliced into the top side of the > fuse box where the fuses are. The fuel pump relay is bypassed somehow, as > the pump runs as long as the ignition is on. I notice the wastage has been > adjusted. Then the stupid digital dash has gone on the blink. > > So I need more info on the UR wiring. The vin no of the car is > wauzzz852ea901061. Can anyone tell me if this is a early 84 loom car or > what? What are the best books to get for this car? I have Haynes manuals > for audi 100-200 and 80-90 coupe. These don't cover much. Steve, the red > Bentley manual for the US 4000(80), CGT, that you mention, is it readily > available and if so where from? How can I get a copy of the factory > diagrams even if they are not completely correct? > > Ok thanks to all involved for the help so far. Des. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! > http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger > >


text:
Check your expectations. The Darkening Of Tristam, the free, time-limited new mini-campaign recently added to Diablo 3 [official site], is most certainly not the full-on Diablo 1 (number added merely for clarity) we hoped for. Nor is it a meaningful bolt-on for those D3 die-hards who crave another hit of over-statted loot. If, however, you are a filthy casual, it's a refreshingly straightforward, aesthetically-tweaked way to return to an otherwise bloated game.
Read the rest of this entry »


text:
Brooks Industries is a global leader in the sales of Embroidery backing. From tearaways to cutaways to numerous specialty products, we are certain that we will be able fulfill any companies needs. Along with full size rolls, Brooks … Continue reading →
Copyright © 2011 - Brooks Industries - All Rights Reserved.


text: Pristine Clean Asheville does commercial cleaning services and we can create a custom plan for your place of business. Before business hours, after business hours, or during; whichever is best for you. Whether you are a bank, restaurant, clinic, office, complex, mom & pop shop, or just about any business that needs a good cleaning; Pristine and their team will make sure your business is clean.


text:
Obituary & Guest Book Preview for Alvin Solomon Caplan
Alvin Solomon Caplan Obituary
First 25 of 190 words
: CAPLAN Alvin Solomon Caplan died at Lambeth House on Saturday December 29, 2012 at 1:15PM and he was 97 years old. He was the beloved...
View Full Obituary & Guest Book for Alvin Caplan
Alvin Caplan Guest Book | View 2 of 5 Entries:
"Mr. Caplan's smile will be missed at our office. Our deepest condolences go out to the entire family. Dr. Delcambre & Staff" -
Timothy Delcambre, DDS
"Dorothy,Ryck and family, our sincerest sympathy and condolences on your loss." -
warren and becky gottsegen
View Additional entries from:
Previous 10
Next 10
View Complete List
View Full Obituary & Guest Book for Alvin Caplan
Ways to View
Restore Obituary & Guest Book
Keep the Obituary and Guest Book online for one of these time periods:
Permanent Sponsorship
$ 79.99
One-Year Sponsorship
$ 29.99
24-Hour Restoration
$ 2.95
Print Obituary & Guest Book
Order a professionally printed copy, starting at $39.00:
Deluxe Hardcover Book
$ 79.00
Laminated Hardcover Book
$ 59.00
Laminated Softcover Book
$ 39.00
Didn't find the Obituary you were looking for?
Return to today's Obituaries for the The Times-Picayune.
Powered By
Search Obituaries
How To
Questions? Contact Us
© 2018 Legacy.com All Rights Reserved