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

Hopkins vs Clancy

Expand Messages
  • odd_empire
    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
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • John Beatty
      ... bashing the scientific community. Specifically, UFO abduction guru Bud Hopkins on this recent teapot tempest regarding Susan Clancy. He wrote a 3000+ word
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 21, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        >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

        The best part about this screed is where he calls
        Clancy's work "faith-based," as if he has a shred of
        real evidence to back him up....

        >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.

        What I get out of it is that he sees these people for
        what they really are. I have to wonder if he really
        believes the bilge he tries to sell...

        >If we all scunch up our eye and believe real hard!

        Just like Tinkerbell....



        _________________________________
        John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
        AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
        "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      • James Dawson
        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,
        Message 3 of 4 , 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

        • odd_empire
          ... psychology and even psychiatry are sciences in the sense that physics, chemistry, etc. are. I find their presumption of defining what is normal
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.