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

6273Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Hopkins vs Clancy

Expand Messages
  • odd_empire
    Dec 21, 2005
      --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, James Dawson
      <jamesndawson@y...> wrote:
      >
      > 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".

      It's good to be so. Psychology is not a hard science like physics, any
      practitioner will tell you that. No one, not even a psychologist can
      tell you exactly what is normal or healthy. They can offer insights to
      that which is harmful and they have a toolkit of therapys for people
      who may be maladjusted.

      >
      > 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.

      Eh? Excuse you?

      I tend to dismiss people when they make sweeping dismissive statements
      - tis true enough. In Szasz's case I would more likely reserve
      judgment until I *read* and understand his argument first. I might
      remind him of the appalling state mental health treatment only a
      hundred years ago. It might be true that the mental health industry is
      nothing but a sham. But that seems a bit extreme don't you think?



      >
      > 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.)
      >

      It's OK to doubt, healthy as a matter of fact. Do you believe that the
      mental health industry just reads a bunch of instructions chiseled in
      stone tablets (like some of their competitors BTW) or do you think
      it's a rather more dynamic, perhaps even scientifically based field?

      > 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.
      >

      Heh!

      No, I was simply voicing an opinion. Am I permitted to do that? Do you
      think people should have opinions that you may not agree with?

      > 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.

      OK; that's quite prejudicial of you but it's also your privilege to be
      so.

      >
      > 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

      Only if the abductors are indeed creations of their own minds. Then
      one has to wrestle with the more complex question of *why?* And that
      will likely be a job of the psychologists.
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic