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

6271Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Hopkins vs Clancy

Expand Messages
  • James Dawson
    Dec 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Odd Empire:
       
      I myself am rather skeptical and have been for some time, that "psychology" and even "psychiatry" are "sciences" in the sense that physics, chemistry, etc. are.  I find their presumption of defining what is "normal" and "healthy" in human thought and emotion to be rather presumptuous, if not arrogant, and root in class prejudice and a simplistic secularism and "rationalism".
       
      M.D. Thomas Szasz, for reasons similar, but probably also different from mine, is a critic of psychology and psychiatry as sciences as well.  I suppose you'll dismiss him as a quack, but in doing so, would you, like Hopkins, not be a "non-scientist" dismissing the opinion of a "scientist", and if an M.D. isn't a "properly qualified" scientist with a "legitimate" university degree to prove it, who is?  I guess it doesn't have much to do with HONEST skepticism, but more with who's ox is gored.
       
      Since Freud, there have been many competing schools and theories of "psychology".  Many of fallen by the wayside, but were taken very seriously in their day.  The "psychology" of fifty years ago or more, would be very bizarre, if not amusing to most of us today, and modern psychologists would be quick to disavow it.  But NOOOOO, not US!  OUR theories are SOUND and RATIONAL and SCIENTIFIC!  (Excuse me, I have my doubts.)
       
      I read the Clancy article.  Was rather underwhelmed by it.  Interesting theory I suppose.  She said all the right "skeptical" things.  How much she explains and how much she doesn't remains to be seen.  What did you want me to say, "Oh! Thank you Odd Empire, for revealing the RATIONAL and SKEPTICAL truth about alien abduction!  If only I'd known about this explanation BEFORE!"  Actually, I had.
       
      Will read the Hopkins piece as time permits.  I expect a reasonable critique, whether I agree with all of it or not.  The way you've dismissed so much in the past, I don't expect your assessment to be very accurate.
       
      I suspect there may be a lot of people who are mistaken about being abducted and open to the possibility some may have.  The exact nature of their "abductors", if they exist, is a question I'm not sure if there are any simple answers to.
       
      James N. Dawson

      odd_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
      It's so strange to me when a non-scientist starts bashing the
      scientific community. Specifically, UFO abduction guru Bud Hopkins on
      this recent teapot tempest regarding Susan Clancy. He wrote a 3000+
      word essay which can be found at
      http://www.intrudersfoundation.org/faith_based.html

      Hopkins is not happy with the direction the study took, its
      participants, the methodology or the people conducting the study.
      Bud's unhappy because (presumably) he's the head cheese in the alien
      abduction business and no snot nosed collage edgumacated
      psychohologest type person has any right to horn into HIS henhouse.
      That's what I get from reading him anyway. I mean, what's not to
      understand? Hopkins's been doing the UFO abduction 'thang for years
      now. He has a popular following and we all know that it's numbers not
      truth that's important. If we all scunch up our eye and believe real hard!

      More http://oddempire.org/weblog/?p=112





      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

    • Show all 4 messages in this topic