Pathological Skepticsm.

[Mr Anonymous]

in actuality, an opinion was solicited regarding the argument presented. notice the juxtaposition of posts. it usually has some relevance tho i could of course be clearer and perhaps more pointed in that particular communication with you

.... Of course I know precisely what were asking me to do old man, however when you put it like:

mr anonymous

perhaps you would like to play the pawn and comment?
lets test your independance

Me actually doing what you ask when you ask it really wouldn't be me demonstrating the slightest degree of actual Independence really now, would it?

Now it appears Ophiolite really has put you on the ignore list for the time being so doesn't look much like they'll be any more sport on the cards today and nothing for anyone else to join in with either, so it's a case of game off it would appear.

Have an excellent weekend.

My regards,

A

 

[Gustav]

i do not get it
i am only concerned about the logic or illogic of my argument. i want to know. i want to learn.
is it impossible to consider the words themselves while disregarding the authors?
say like an impartial analysis?

i would love to hear someone say i erred and explain how/why/where
but it appears it is not going to happen
imagine that
perhaps there is a fee involved?

 

[Gustav]

oh well
let me amuse myself

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster.

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster.

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster.

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster.

Gustav, I had taken you to be an intelligent, but aggressive poster.

/cackle

 

[duendy]

you see, i feel you Gustav, and am sure others of with savvy do to. what you say is rifght,and whyyy i know yu seem to piss the supposedly ever-so-smart materialists off is precisely ause you show them up the way you do, with logic and insight

and if your rivals claim that you also add 'insult' ad hom, and invective along wid yur shit and they Do not, then---heh, they isss LYING!

 

[Giambattista]

battista is useful. a tool, a pawn, a means to an end

I guess you're a hoe, too, eh?

 

[Gustav]

would you like me to explain context?

 

[Giambattista]

The hope of a psychological science became indistinguishable from the fact of psychological science. The entire subsequent history of psychology can be seen as a ritualistic endeavor to emulate the forms of science in order to sustain the delusion that it already is a science.

- Sigmund Koch, PhD

http://www.earlham.edu/~jonesst/index.html

Theories. Observations. More theories. Endlos, endlos.

I am left wondering, however, what the **** visiting a psychiatrist has to do with psychology. The fields may be related, they may overlap, but they are definitely not the same. My observations in defense of psychology were neither intended for, nor do I think they should be applied to, psychiatry.

Really, there is little difference overall, except for maybe that one is more likely to prescribe drugs, and the other is more likely to talk. And talk. And never really come to a point. Just like this "debate" we're having. Or is it even a debate? It seems pretty pointless.
And what is a counselor? Someone with a few years less training in the exact same methods? If a psychologist would have been so helpful, why was I referred to a PSYCHIATRIST instead?
Oh. Because the psychiatrist is generally the only one legally licensed to dispense prescriptions? I think so...

I really don't care to say anything more about this. Like I just said, it's pointless. Nothing is going to be accomplished.

 

[Ophiolite]

Returning to the thread topic - pathological skepticism - it interesting to read this from the link with which btimsah opens his arguments.

Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) is a class of pseudoscience masquerading as proper skepticism. A pseudoskeptic is an individual who claims to support "reason" and the "scientific worldview", but frequently uses logical fallacies, attempts to silence opponents, and employs various invalid strategies of persuasion. The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of a person's favorite idea.

A scientist (and one would think the same applies to historians, engineers, and the like) must be skeptical. Skepticism is part of the scientific method. How do we distinguish, then, between valid skepticism and pathological skepticism? The only (?) measure would seem to be the duration of the skepticism. The scientists skepticism remains until evidence has been presented to remove that skepticism. The pathological skeptic continues to deny the significance or reality of the evidence.

So, it devolves ultimately on how we assess the quality of evidence. Science has evolved sets of standards, that exist either explicitly or implicitly. It seems reasonable to ask the so called woo-woos to adhere to these same standards, if they wish their claims to be seriously considered.

 

[Giambattista]

Just to answer a few things you said...

6. We know that people may have preferences for colours.

What do you mean by "may have"? Are you saying that having a favorite color is POSSIBLE, but not PROVEN?

It is equally easy to make psychology appear unpredicatable, and based upon opinion, guesswork and luck.

And I'm guessing you will find it equally easy to make psychology look exact and predictable, if you so choose. I could probably do it. But really, my heart lies in the truth.

You say - preferences may change without warning. Not so.
Psychologists can define a range of causes in the internal and external environment of the individual that may cause a change of preference.

Same quote that Gustav mentioned. I agreed with his short and sweet opinion of the "MAY CAUSE".

Mmm! EXCELLENT! How fitting to talk of a "science" that for the most part can merely define RANGES, and not absolutes, all in the Pseudoscience forum!
2 +/- 2 = 0/4 Doesn't get much better than that, does it?

Reminds me a little of UFOs, that tired old subject that we can and should make fun of, if we're really smart.
We can define a range of prosaic explanations for ALL sightings, no matter what. If someone sees something weird, we can automatically assume it's one of those on the list. It doesn't really matter WHICH one, as long it's there. If something doesn't quite fit, let's just assume that one of them MUST, and mold the details of the sighting to fit OUR pre-conceived explanation.

Happiness IS a c*** up your A**!!!
Maybe.
It's within range, at least... Good enough for psychology.

 

[Ophiolite]

Giambattista,
you seem to view psychology as being some form of mental medicine i.e. abnormal psychology. The field is far larger than that. It deals with how we learn, how we mature, how we reach decisions, how we interact with others, how we interpret data, how we see things.

I agree, that since your understanding of what psychology is is so warped, there is no point in saying anything more about it. Please don't.

 

[Gustav]

So, it devolves ultimately on how we assess the quality of evidence. Science has evolved sets of standards, that exist either explicitly or implicitly. It seems reasonable to ask the so called woo-woos to adhere to these same standards, if they wish their claims to be seriously considered.

garbage. a stupid soundbite

what claims? what standards? what sets?

 

[Giambattista]

- Sigmund Koch, PhD

Of course, he's only one measly little psycho. Anyone is free to disagree with him.

 

[Gustav]

I agree, that since your understanding of what psychology is is so warped, there is no point in saying anything more about it. Please don't.

ja, since you cannot make any meaningful response, you must resort to ad hominems

absolutely disgraceful!

 

[(Q)]

Reminds me a little of UFOs, that tired old subject that we can and should make fun of, if we're really smart.
We can define a range of prosaic explanations for ALL sightings, no matter what. If someone sees something weird, we can automatically assume it's one of those on the list. It doesn't really matter WHICH one, as long it's there. If something doesn't quite fit, let's just assume that one of them MUST, and mold the details of the sighting to fit OUR pre-conceived explanation.

Damn fine observation!

 

[Ophiolite]

Giambattista, re your recent posts: if I want to hear a particular tune I shall talk with the organ grinder, not his monkey.

 

[Giambattista]

Giambattista,
you seem to view psychology as being some form of mental medicine i.e. abnormal psychology. The field is far larger than that. It deals with how we learn, how we mature, how we reach decisions, how we interact with others, how we interpret data, how we see things.

I agree, that since your understanding of what psychology is is so warped, there is no point in saying anything more about it. Please don't.

That's fine. I really don't see how my understanding is warped at all, but I guess you're thinking that it is because I personally don't feel that psychology has done anything useful for me. If my counselor's last resort was to refer me to a psychiatrist, and not a psychologist, she must not have thought the latter would have been very helpful. Or maybe she just wasn't as smart as she should have been.
Maybe I'm just plain wrong. And you're right. After all, I think you'd like it that way.

 

[Giambattista]

So, it devolves ultimately on how we assess the quality of evidence. Science has evolved sets of standards, that exist either explicitly or implicitly. It seems reasonable to ask the so called woo-woos to adhere to these same standards, if they wish their claims to be seriously considered.

garbage. a stupid soundbite

what claims? what standards? what sets?

It seems reasonable to ask the so-called skeptics to adhere to the idea that no matter how strange or how weird something appears, it's ALWAYS a lot simpler!
It also seems reasonable to assume that people are either being FOOLED, or they are LIARS. Everytime.

If we just keep those ideals in our hearts, we will do Philip Klass proud!

 

[Giambattista]

Damn fine observation!

Thank you.

If something doesn't quite fit, let's just assume that one of them MUST, and mold the details of the sighting to fit OUR pre-conceived explanation.

And if that means omitting a key element of the observation in question, so be it. As long as we make our final destination: SCIENCE.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science has evolved sets of standards, that exist either explicitly or implicitly.

It is interesting, though hardly surprising, that the difficulty of doing this consistently and effectively in the 'soft' sciences has been recognised. In the US, for example, a division of the National Academies has implemented this :

The National Research Council’s Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (DBASSE), with funding from the Hewlett Foundation, the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, has established a planning committee to oversee the conceptual development of a broad, long-term initiative related to the quality of evidence. The planning committee will help map out a range of topics and activities to be pursued over a multi-year period to improve the quality of research in the behavioral and social sciences and education and strengthen the ties between behavioral and social science, public policy, and practice.

Source: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/dbasse/Standards of Evidence Description.html

 

[Giambattista]

Giambattista, re your recent posts: if I want to hear a particular tune I shall talk with the organ grinder, not his monkey.

Oh, honey, I don't much care for your station either. I'm just gonna shut the radio off, period.