From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:10:43 +0000 Archived: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:03:25 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:28:53 -0400 >To: ufo-updates-list.nul >From: post.nul >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:16:28 -0500 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:17:38 +0000 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:52:26 -0400 >>>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>>The inability of scientists to recognize the limitations of >>>their own knowledge, etc. is what I remember from many of Ray's >>>contributions. I think you may be misrepresenting him a bit. Is >>>this a manifestation of inattentional blindness? Indirect >>>realism? >>Thanks William for bringing the discussion back to the point. In >>my mind, at least. Of course, all the commentators to the >>original post seem to be having a problem with their ability to >>step back and realize most of their responses come off as >>emotional - from the gut as it were. I am not saying that is >>wrong, it is just a fact of the matter. >Since you said _all_ the commentators, I have to disagree. >Not a fact at all, Kathy. At least in my case, I know I am not >responding based on emotion. I usually just lurk and read the >various posts. I prefer to not get involved in the "fray" as you >termed it. This has been my strategy for a very long time. I >usually adhere to it. But every now and then someone says >something that is so blatently ignorant or stupid that I just >don't let it pass without comment - because it needs to be put >in proper perspective and not because of any "from the gut" >emotional reaction. >Saying someone has made a dumb remark is not tantamount to >calling that person dumb. I say dumb things quite often and _do_ >dumb things just as often. Yet I am far from dumb. >>Me? I love reading Ray's comments. They are never boring or >>reflecting the usual approach to ufo investigation. But, then, >>my guess is that you all would toss me into the same bin as Ray. >>But, before you do that think the move through. Sometimes, most >>of you come off with a knee jerk reaction. It is as if you are >>defending an indefensible position. Sometimes, it comes close to >>simply name calling. Believe me, I know I am not above the fray. >>I know that I sometimes enjoy sticking it to whoever is trying >>to stick it to me. Onward, charge, blithely into the fray. >I usually love reading Ray's posts too. And I often agree with >him. I haven't tossed him into any bin. >Regarding name calling, I began each and every one of my posts >with Ray's actual name. Never anything else. It was Ray who did >not provide me with the same courtesy and called me "friend" and >it was obvious from the way he used that term in the sentence >that it was in a demeaning context. >Psychology is full of problems. I have been conceding this since >the beginning. It is full of people using unproven tenets of the >field in completely subjective interpretations and applications. >It is full of conflicting systems. >But it _is_ a science. It does use proper scientific >methodology. It has produced and continues to produce valuable >and verifiable data. A lot of what it has come up with is >directly applicable to the study of ufos. UFO researchers who do >not apply certain psychological knowledge during ufo >investigation are not as thorough as they need to be. The >primary instrument in the study of ufo phenomenon is the >witness. Every instrument needs to be properly calibrated. This >is where psychology makes its contribution to the study of ufos. >It helps calibrate the human witness. >The problems in psychology exist. Nobody is disputing this. But >some people want to throw the whole field out. That's wrong. >That simply can't be justified. It won't ever happen. Psychology >will continue to exist, improve itself, and make contributions >that will affect the ufo field - no matter how many ufo >researchers disdain it, drag their feet when it comes to >accepting it, or stick their heads in the sand to ignore it. >Psychology _does_ have some valuable understanding of the human >being, of the human mind. It has obtained this through good >science and proper methodology. You can't dismiss this. To >attempt to do so is the only "defending an indefensible >position' that is occuring. Eugene: As you state, you have been lurking. So, I guess you would not be included in the term "most of". Second, I guess you haven't been reading my early posts where I tried to introduce listers to the direction, for example, neuropathology, psychology, and all the other 'ologies' are dabbing their toes into. So, you are forgiven for making a judgement call as to what you have decided my position on the issue of the 'witness is a collection of their worldview' and what they see in the sky and experience in an altered state/waking-sleeping REM-consiousness. Trust me, we are on the same side. KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp