UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 20

Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com