From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:22:20 -0500 Archived: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:01:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >From: Cathy Reason <Cathym.nul> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:51:24 +0100 >Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:07:01 -0500 >>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary >>>But what psychologists are actually doing when they claim to be >>>using operational definitions is both confused and self- >>>contradictory. In psychology an "operational " definition is a >>>proxy for some other quantity which cannot be directly measured >>>and which has no rigorously defined relationship to the proxy. >>>This is absolutely not what Bridgman meant by an operational >>>definition. >>This may or not be a valid point. Or it may be valid only in >>some circumstances. I seriously doubt it has the far-reaching >>implications you are alleging. Even if you are one hundred >>percent correct on this in that it applies everywhere and all >>the time in psychology and it totally messes up the research >>(and I am saying you are not correct here) then it is still not >>defining the big picture of psychological research. >Here's why this is such a big deal: Operationalism is supposed >to be a way of putting all your measurements and observations on >a sound empirical basis without recourse to spooky metaphysical >entities that can't be observed. So anything required by theory >but which can't be observed - such as quarks - has to be linked >to what can be observed by a rigorous process of logic. >But if your supposedly "operational" measure is simply a proxy >for something completely different which not only can't be >measured or observed, but whose relationship to the proxy is >impossible even to define, then the whole basis of your claim to >empirical rigor is a mirage. Your supposedly objective >measurements and observations are all hopelessly contaminated by >arbitrary subjective considerations. You might as well be gazing >into a crystal ball. Absolutely, Cathy! Absolutely! You don't have to lecture me about operationalisms and what they are supposed to do. I well understand them. Re-read my post. I said you may have a valid point. Then I said that it may be valid only some of the time within psychology. You continue to define psychology as Cognitivism. I don't. I see psychological research as vaster and more complex than cognitive assumptions. I see psychology as using empirical experimentaion as well. If during these empirical experiments an operationalism is used then the problem you are accurately defining may not apply. Put yourself outside Cognitivism for a few seconds. Wrap your mind around the concept that someone else doesn't define psychology in the same limited way you do. I also said that even if you are one hundred percent correct and the problem occurs within psychology all of the time (when an operationalism is used) - and this was my saying you may be right - that this is still not defining the big picture of psychological research. Psychological research uses the other well established and accepted methods that exist and which conform to the standards of the scientific method. It uses much more than operationalisms. If you're going to argue with me, stick to what we are arguing about. Don't create totally different arguments around things that I am not disputing and slip them in as a substitute for the original, and then continue on as if this is what we were arguing about. 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