6273Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Hopkins vs Clancy
- Dec 21, 2005--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, James Dawson
>"psychology" and even "psychiatry" are "sciences" in the sense that
> Odd Empire:
> I myself am rather skeptical and have been for some time, 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.
>different from mine, is a critic of psychology and psychiatry as
> M.D. Thomas Szasz, for reasons similar, but probably also
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?
>of "psychology". Many of fallen by the wayside, but were taken very
> Since Freud, there have been many competing schools and theories
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
>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.
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 areasonable 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
>being abducted and open to the possibility some may have. The exact
> I suspect there may be a lot of people who are mistaken about
nature of their "abductors", if they exist, is a question I'm not sure
if there are any simple answers to.
>Only if the abductors are indeed creations of their own minds. Then
> James N. Dawson
one has to wrestle with the more complex question of *why?* And that
will likely be a job of the psychologists.
- << Previous post in topic