Luke wrote:A theory is a theory, tested or not. Logic is proven. 2 + 2 = 4.
Theory has a specific meaning in science, and I basically gave that definition in my previous post. A scientific theory is not "just a theory" as the term is used by lay people. In other words, it's not just some guys opinion about how the world works. It is a logically consistent explanation that can explain the current empirical knowledge on a topic. Theories not only describe and explain, but they can also make predictions. It's also important that a theory be phrased in a falsifiable way and continue to be tested to show that it is resistant to attempts at falsification.
Logic is the process of deduction, but any logical statement is only as true as the initial assumptions it is founded on. This is how statements can be logically correct, yet still false. If I say 1.) all gamers like Deus Ex; 2.) HobieWan does not like Deus Ex; 3.) Therefore HobieWan is not a gamer; then I have a made a logically correct deduction in step 3, but it all depends on the assumption step 1 and the empirical truth of step 2.
Luke wrote:I prefer things that are concrete and known. Psychology asks, Science proves.
This is a common misunderstanding about science. Science never proves. The scientific methods is a process that continues to test, refine, and evaluate theory. But science's methods do not lead to absolute proof. Scientific writers are very careful to state that their findings provide evidence for their theories, but they do no make claims that their theories are proven.
Modern day psychology is a science. It relies on probability more than some other disciplines and it doesn't have the same precise accuracy as physics, but psychology can still make probablistic statements that are far better than conjecture.
Luke wrote:I still don't understand why "nature vs. nurture" is still even in debate. Clone two humans, give them different environments, see how they turn out. Repeat. Problem solved.
This is what they do in psychology studies. They find identical adopted twins reared apart from each other in different environments and they create a heritability index score to determine how much the studied factor is due to their biology and how much is due to their environment. The results are still confusing though because it's not clear what aspects of the environment affected them and if they shared exposure to similar types of environmental stimuli despite being reared apart. Our biology has evolved and self organized to be highly useful in the social contexts we live in, and it is also very adaptive. Pretty much everyone understands nature and nurture are both important and it's incredibly hard to pull them apart since they are both influencing each other all the time.