Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: EEG brain trace 'can detect autism'

Expand Messages
  • Elliot Temple
    ... Could you clarify what you mean a bit? It just so happens that I formed that opinion about Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins several years ago. I recently
    Message 1 of 60 , Jun 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 30, 2012, at 3:19 PM, a b wrote:

      > Hi Henry - Communicating between world views is often difficult and
      > may be experienced as frustrating/dogma/ignorance in all directions. I
      > still read FoR because I'm still interested in the
      > popperian/deutschian way of thinking. However, I find that these days
      > I'm more at the stage of being interested by any ongoing personal
      > development exhibited by popperian/deutschian individuals. That is an
      > important measure of something...I feel. Whether and how people
      > develop. For me personally that includes how people advance in terms
      > of, say, how they interact with, inspire, draw out, negotiate with,
      > and so on, other people.
      > All progress is a measure of how valuable the philosophy is.
      > Someone like Rami for example. I'm not clear how new he is to the
      > philosophy itself, but he seems to be going through his own little
      > enlightenment of personal discovery. Where will it lead? That's
      > interesting. Elliot appears to have evolved somewhat in how he manages
      > other people. I was interested by his comments regarding the
      > distinctions between [Derren Brown] and Richard Dawkins.

      Could you clarify what you mean a bit?

      It just so happens that I formed that opinion about Derren Brown and Richard Dawkins several years ago. I recently repeated it but that wasn't new for me now (and a lot of the the pieces of that view actually predate my watching the video where they interacted). So whatever it looked like to you, I guess that won't be 100% accurate (not a surprise or big deal), and the non-perfect fit makes it harder for me to figure out the gist of what you meant (hence my request for clarification).

      -- Elliot Temple
    • Elliot Temple
      ... I ve read 20 of his books. If you want to spout stuff that s *not even slightly close to his positions* and then completely ignored his informed supporters
      Message 60 of 60 , Jul 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:11 AM, smitra@... wrote:

        > Citeren Elliot Temple <curi@...>:
        >> On Jul 3, 2012, at 8:55 AM, smitra@... wrote:
        >>> Citeren Elliot Temple <curi@...>:
        >>>> On Jul 2, 2012, at 3:25 PM, smitra@... wrote:
        >>>>> Citeren Elliot Temple <curi@...>:
        >>>>>> On Jun 30, 2012, at 1:21 PM, smitra@... wrote:
        >>>>>>> Citeren Elliot Temple <curi@...>:
        >>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2012, at 12:35 PM, smitra@... wrote:
        >>>>>>>>> A is not junk, it can be criticised for subjective judgments being
        >>>>>>>>> involved here. Whether one consideres someone having a mild form of
        >>>>>>>>> autism to have a "disease" or not, doesn't really matter. What matters
        >>>>>>>>> is that you can identify children who show deviating behavior in some
        >>>>>>>>> sense in a relative reliable way, i.e. it can be replicated when other
        >>>>>>>>> experts look at it.
        >>>>>>>> Actually you can't. The diagnostic criteria are vague and overly
        >>>>>>>> arbitrary. Different "experts" in fact frequently do disagree on
        >>>>>>>> diagnosis and have no objective way to settle their disagreement.
        >>>>>>>> -- Elliot Temple
        >>>>>>>> http://elliottemple.com/
        >>>>>>> While the agreement isn't perfect, especially in the milder cases (and
        >>>>>>> that motivates the development of more objective diagnostic tools such
        >>>>>>> as the EEG method), there is enough common ground among diferent
        >>>>>>> experts to conclude that there does exist something like e.g.
        >>>>>>> Asperger's syndrome.
        >>>>>> Do you understand that you're ignoring the disagreeing opinions of
        >>>>>> some experts? Like Thomas Szasz.
        >>>>>> Why do you choose them to ignore? How are you picking which expert
        >>>>>> opinions count and which don't?
        >>>>>> Is it a popularity contest? If so David Deutsch and the many worlds
        >>>>>> interpretation in physics must be wrong, I guess... Perhaps DD's
        >>>>>> opinion doesn't even count at all. Why would DD's minority opinion
        >>>>>> count but Szasz's doesn't?
        >>>>>> DD has a high reputation and some other respectable people have said
        >>>>>> some nice things about MWI. OK. But some major players in psychiatry
        >>>>>> have said good things about the positions Szasz takes and conceded
        >>>>>> major stuff. Some have basically apologized and admitted
        >>>>>> they/psychiatry were wrong, but their view on that still gets ignored
        >>>>>> despite their high status.
        >>>>>> When psychiatrists are used in criminal cases, people sometimes hire
        >>>>>> more than one before getting the diagnosis they want. Doesn't that
        >>>>>> tell it all?
        >>>>>>> One has to take into account here that in medicine you can't afford to
        >>>>>>> wait until the science is perfect. People can have all sorts of
        >>>>>>> problems that have to be sorted out while the science that underlies
        >>>>>>> their problems is still under development.
        >>>>>> But what if it isn't medicine at all? What if it's social control?
        >>>>>> Then we can't afford to have it.
        >>>>>> -- Elliot Temple
        >>>>>> http://beginningofinfinity.com/
        >>>>> I would have to spend some time reading in detail what Szasz has
        >>>>> written. From taking a quick look, I have the impression that he is
        >>>>> arguing mainly on the basis of simply defining mental disease
        >>>>> differently than is usually done. You could actually apply that
        >>>>> argument also to ordinary disease. I could claim that disease in
        >>>>> general does not exists. An organism is ultimately just some self
        >>>>> preserving collection of molecules contained in some region. The way it
        >>>>> "should" function taken as a rule generalized from how most organisms
        >>>>> of a certain type function, can be used to diagnose "disease". But then
        >>>>> one can object to that on the same grounds as people here dismiss
        >>>>> Asperger's syndrome.
        >>>> You haven't understood him at all.
        >>>> If you want to answer my questions, maybe you should try a bit harder?
        >>>> If you don't care to answer them, then what are you doing? Trying to
        >>>> convince yourself that you're informed?
        >>>> -- Elliot Temple
        >>>> http://elliottemple.com/
        >>> No, I know that I'm not well informed. Answering your question about
        >>> comparing DD's MWI vs. Szasz ideas would not be helpful because of my
        >>> background (my knowledge about medicine/psychiatry is almost zero
        >>> compared to what I know about physics).
        >>> Now, you haven't explained Szasz ideas here either, nothing I read on
        >>> this lists reads more than ill informed exaggerations. Just because one
        >>> can argue about Asperger's syndrome, doesn't by itself imply that the
        >>> whole field of psychiatry is fundamentally flawed. And I don't mean in
        >>> the sense of the methods of diagnosis being weak with a lot of room for
        >>> subjective judgements, rather that (almost) everything they consider to
        >>> be a disease not actually being a disease, but some deviation from a
        >>> social rule they've invented.
        >> If you want an explanation of a particular point, the thing to do is
        >> read about it or ask. Complaining I haven't answered questions that
        >> you haven't asked is a bit ridiculous.
        >> I have explained quite a bit about Szasz and psychiatry if you search
        >> the archives. More on BoI list I believe.
        >> I still don't understand the point of reading just enough Szasz to
        >> completely misunderstand him and stopping there.
        >> -- Elliot Temple
        >> http://fallibleideas.com/
        > I don't think I've misunderstood him. It is simlar to reading what Woit
        > has to say about string theory. Some lesser expert in mathematical
        > physics than him may not properly understand all of his arguments, but
        > still get the correct picture that he is exaggerating and
        > oversimplifying things.

        I've read 20 of his books. If you want to spout stuff that's *not even slightly close to his positions* and then completely ignored his informed supporters who tell you that you've haven't got what he's about ... that's very silly.

        -- Elliot Temple
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.