From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 19:06:42 -0500 Archived: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 08:32:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Cathy Reason <Cathym.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:42:17 +0100 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:05:17 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>The comment that the unreliability of human perception is an >>assumption is demonstrably wrong given the oft-demonstrated >>variability in relevant experimental data. >We can see how this sort of circular reasoning operates in the >case of visual illusions. No. The only thing we can see here is you bringing a lot of allegations into the discussion but when they are countered you ignore the information presented that counters them. You make proclamations but don't provide a shred of data or reference to back them up. I, on the other hand, have taken every remark you have made in all of your posts and addressed them, without skipping any. I have provided you with sound reasons and examples showing why I believe they successfully oppose your allegations. You have ignored every one of them. You simply continue to harp about the evils of Cognitivism and how statistics and the use of operationalisms, although perfectly acceptable in other sciences, are not possible to employ in psychology without bad results. You simply cannot see that some of Cognitivisms premises are very solid - established by fields outside psychology - and _are_ a basis for proceeding from, and when further experimentation by psychological researchers produce data that supports the initial premise it is a case of more evidence being added to the pile. >To the vision researcher, these offer an opportunity to examine >the mechanisms by which the brain extracts information from the >visual world. By constructing experimental artifacts, one can >test hypotheses based on how the visual system behaves in highly >novel and constrained situations. What vision researchers? What are these mechanisms by which the brain extracts information from the visual world? What experimental artifacts? What hypotheses are being tested on how the visual system behaves in highly novel and constrained ways? Can you tell us what these novel and constrained ways are? What have these tests reveiled about how the visual system behaves in novel and constrained ways? Don't just claim something _is_. Give us something we can sink our teeth into. >Psychologists on the other hand proceed from the premise that >all human perception is unreliable. The purpose of all >experiments is then to provide an ever-lengthening list of >examples of unreliable perception. It matters not that these >examples are largely artifacts - the premise dictates the >conclusion. This premise that human perception is unreliable is based on a lot of data that has come in from several fields in science, not just psychology. It is pretty solid. That is why psychologists proceed from it. Experiment is then providing more evidence that confirms the premise. I have said this so many times already that I'm sure every person on this List reading this thread is going to start saying it in their sleep. Presented solid data to support why I contend its solid too. But you continue to ignore this information and just continue to allege it's an unsupportable and unsupported assumption. 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