Forum:"Roy F. Baumeister" is he trustable scientist, or pseudoscientist?

< Index | General discussion

Hello there, Steampeng

In my quest to figure out if we do or don't have free will, I stumble upon this man. Trying to look him up on here, I saw his name on Pseudo Psychology page in the search but looking at the page I can't find anything. Should I trust him on what he says on free will, or is he just another quack? ^{— Unsigned, by: Steampeng MK.1 / talk / contribs}

Rather than looking at who said something, you're typically better off looking at what was being said. Some people can be horribly wrong on some topics, but spot-on right on others (see: Nobel disease).

In any case, did you actually look at the reference on the pseudopsychology page? That his name appears there can mean two things: He's a pseudopsychologist, or he's someone whos has *disputed* a pseudopsychologist Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well for the later, that the thing, I'm not sure about what he said. All I know is when I look his name up it leads me to the page but says nothing on him (maybe I can't find his entry).

For the earlier, his views of free will were (and I quote Wikipedia on this)"... major aspects that make up free will as self-control, rational, intelligent choice, planful behavior, and autonomous initiative." He doesn't look too far out insane on his views of other things. I will say that wikipedia is not the best source, but I can't find other things putting him and free will in the same sentence.( My google fu is weak and I'm not that good with computers)--Steampeng MK.1 (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I say he's reputable. Here's that search you wanted. He's cited in our article as disproving pseudopsychology, so. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you fuzzy, this will be helpful.--Steampeng MK.1 (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)