UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2012 > Apr > Apr 28

Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:47:40 -0500
Archived: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:55:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary


>From: Cathy Reason <Cathym.nul>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul>
>Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:21:29 +0100
>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>>From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:09:00 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

>>>And that's why I describe these examples of yours as anomalies.
>>>You've taken a ragbag of anecdotes and assumed they are
>>>representative of some systemic unreliabity. But there is just
>>>no evidence of this and plenty of evidence against it.

>>And that's why your ragbag of anecdotes description is
>>completely out to lunch. There is indeed a bag of evidence and
>>it is a pretty big bag, and contains a whole lot more than
>>anecdotes.

>Eugene - your grasp of logic isn't just out to lunch, it's gone
>off on a five-year safari.

>I have nothing to add to what David Rudiak has just posted
>concerning your notion of reliability. As for your evidence, I
>see nothing to challenge my earlier conclusion that it's a
>scattering of oddities propping up a mountain of guesswork.

>You're right about one thing - I have absolutely no idea what
>this theory of perception is that you're supposedly advocating,
>which I suspect probably makes two of us. The details of this
>mysterious theory appear to change by the minute. Apparently it
>owes nothing to Cognitivism, it does not depend on
>"operationalisms" (by which I assume you mean operationalized
>measurements), and relies on proof found at the bottom of
>mineshafts.

>Indeed I think a hole in the ground is the right place for it.
>But that's just my opinion.

This thread is a fiasco. But I will see if I can help you figure
out what is going on since you express such confusion. I think
you'll agree soon enough that it has not been all that hard to
understand and doesn't require one to be too skilled in logic.
Even an idiot can follow what's been happening here.

Let's start with a bit of history. That will be the best way to
come to a clear understanding of this little fiasco.

Ray Dickenson made comments about psychology and psychiatry not
being science and that all psychologists and psychiatrists were
liars, criminals, or fools. I took issue with this and posted a
very short response saying his remarks were shallow and dumb,
and that both these fields were science and have had many
successes.

David Rudiak replied to my post, essentially making remarks on
Ray's views, and, in the process, describing the human
perception system as accurate. I disagreed with the word
'accurate', since to me it meant precise, exact, and free of
error or mistake. So I replaced it with functional, which meant
able to perform a function or to do a job. Not much from David
after this for a little while.

You chimed in with your comments that you disagreed with my
contention that psychology is a science and presented six
reasons as to why you disagreed.

These were: 1. in your experience, experimenation in psychology
was prone to poor result when it came to reproducibility (but
you had no statistics on this), 2. psychologists regularly
confuse operational notions of things with proxy notions of
things, 3. the statistical methodology used in psychology often
is such that psychological hypotheses cannot be falsified even
in principle, 4. results of experiments published indicated as
predictive tests all too often turn out to be just modified
versions of the original theory, so that falsification of that
theory is not possible, 5. most psychological research is based
on Cognitivist assumptions and that these assumptions are not
generally tested, and 6. findings in psychological research turn
out to be identical to the Cognitivist assumptions on which the
research is based in the first place (garbage in, garbage out).
You made a comment that research in neuroscience was producing
results that was undermining many Cognitivist assumptions.

I replied, saying psychology was a science because it used
methods other than statistical methodology and operationalisms,
and that these other methods conformed to the standards of the
scientific method - because they were, indeed, the same methods
used by the other fields of science outside psychology. I also,
accurately, pointed out that psychology was much more than
Cognitivsm.

For merely giving a list of methods used by science, I was
accused of believing that the scientific method was a
complicated and complex thing, of being obsessed with "elaborate
methodological ritual" and of possessing a "reverence for
logic." Simply for making a list.

I said the 'file drawer effect' could be used in a pragmatic way
so that a bad theory could be discarded. You jumped down my
throat as if I did not realize that the 'file drawer effect' was
used to balance statistical results. I pointed out that
publication bias leads often to only 'positive outcome research'
getting published, which leads to a subject under investigation
being misrepresented and that meta-analysis is affected by this.
Pay attention to the research that that wasn't 'positive outcome
research' and you can discard a theory.

I was given a lecture about operationalisms, what they are, how
they work, and what they are designed to do. It was made to look
as if I was arguing against this when the only argument I was
making was that psychology _might_ not be quilty of this all the
time. I even said that you might have a valid point here but
that even if it was true all of the time, psychological research
was much more than the use of operationalisns. You took us off
on a tangent trying to make it look like I didn't understand the
use of operationalisms or how they were used in Cognitivism, and
as if I was arguing against you on this.

I, accurately, pointed out that many of the ideas in
neuroscience are interpretations and assumptions as well, that
the results often can equally support opposing views. I gave the
example of consciousness, where the consenus in neuroscience is
that it is an epiphenomenon of the brain but the current data
can be just as supportive of the interpretation that
consciousness is located outside the brain, and that several of
its most eminent researchers have come to this conclusion.

You tried to make it look like Jame's J. Gibson had some
profound revelation thirty years ago that the rest of the world
didn't ever catch on to - the idea that if you change the
premise, you change the conclusion. I pointed out that Gibson's
views of 'direct perception' and 'direct realism' were
demolished by the evidence of today's physics.

I referred to physics again once more, to support my contention
that human perception is not accurate (in the sense of free from
error, precise) - to show that it failed to detect most of what
is out there. For this, I was accused, by David, of having a
physicist's view of reality, and by you, of believing human
perception is not reliable because it fails to detect
interference patterns between quantum waveforms. I pointed out
that it fails to detect a whole lot more than this.

My reference to physics was to show that human perception does
not, and can never, detect everything that is out there, and
that it does not, and can never, be precise, exact and free of
error when it presents its 'match' of it to awareness. My
reference to mind shafts was to show that it can't even be free
from error when detecting within the range of frequencies
natural selection designed it to deal with.

My contention that the premise that human perception is not
accurate draws on physics but does not rely exclusively on it.
It comes from evidence from other fields, including psychology,
and everyday reality. But you choose to label this a ragbag of
perceptional anomalies.

You and David brought up illusions. You both tried to make it
look like I was using them to support my contention that human
perception is not accurate. Yet, I never brought illusions up,
didn't talk about them, never used them in any way, and only
ever said that, at best, they _might_ be considered a bit more
evidence on the pile if the premise that human perception is not
reliable is correct. In fact, I agreed with you and David that
these illusions did not represent anything faced in everyday
reality by human beings.

At one point, I constructed a bad analogy that led to you
assuming I was saying the information filtered out by the brain
was all relevant. I explained to you where the analogy went bad
and took the blame for you making this one assumption. Then I
clearly stated that I was saying, in agreement with you and
David, that most of the information filtered is not relevant.

When I gave the example of my wife and I, as well as my son,
missing each other, you gave your lecture on visual search
errors. You diminished their importance, saying they were
exceptional events. I pointed out they were not exceptional,
that they happen all the time to everyone, as when not seeing
keys, cups of tea, books, etc. that had been put down. And that
were happening constantly in the world of camouflaged animals.

Because you couldn't seperate yourself from the Cognitivist
notion of what a representation is, you assumed when we were
discussing the images or pictures (representations of reality)
that our brain presents to us, I was believing in some
representation-building homunculus that was busy watching what
was coming in from our senses, then blotting out parts of what
it sees that it figured it didn't need, then putting a picture
together, and finally presenting it to us as if we were a
spectator watching a show. You assumed this and didn't
understand that my idea of the representation simply was 'that
which reached the level of awareness'. You both beat this
homunculus to death, David never realizing that nobody was
arguing for it.

You both likewise didn't realize that I was never, at any point,
arguing against the notion that natural selection evolved a
system that was designed to work within a narrow spectrum of
what was out there, and that it did this via the mechanisms and
algorithms you were espousing. You both could not see that I was
never, at any point, arguing that natural selection's evolved
system made a good match between what was out there and 'that
which reached awareness' (the representation) within this narrow
spectrum. Too busy kicking the homunculus around.

So, I got lectured about automobile engines overheating and
shelling out big bucks.

Both you and David couldn't see that I was never arguing against
the idea that human perception is dependable most of the time
and that natural selection evolved a system that allowed us to
function in the realm of matter and to survive within in. You
both called this dependibility 'reliable'. I called this
dependibility 'functional'.

Your final remarks to date, (above) are ludicrous and another
example of how you go off on these wild flights into non-
reality. I am not advocating any theory of perception other than
the exact same one both you and David are advocating. Go back
and verify my history of this thread and you will confirm this.
Nothing has been changing by the minute, except for your ideas
of what is being said. There is no alternate, other, mysterious
theory of perception bubbling up here. Just the same one you and
David subscribe to.

All it takes for you is to realize that when you and David are
saying 'reliable' and 'dependable', I am saying 'functional',
and that when I read or write the word 'accurate', to me it
means in the sense of 'free from error or mistake'. And for you
to realize that 'representation of reality within the brain'
means for me 'that which reaches awareness'. Then you (and
David) will realize that you both have turned this discussion
into a huge bru-ha-ha. Painting me as a clown in the process.
But, I guess as I was pointing out where you were making your
unfounded and inaccurate assumptions as to what I was thinking,
contending, and implying, and the effect this was having in
derailing this discussion, you could do little else - especially
if you wanted to save face. When you have to resort to the type
of comments that are the sole content of your response above, it
is a sure sign that this is indeed what is happening.

I think I have pretty much summed up the entire discussion. If
anyone following this thread thinks it is not a fair
representation of what occurred then they can start with the
first post and read them all to this point again. Why anyone
would want to go back and re-hash this is beyond me, except
perhaps to have a good belly laugh.

The reason I was making such a fuss about the definition of
'accurate' did not have anything to do with human beings in
their everyday situations. It had to do with the concern of
encountering an alien intelligence and this human system evolved
by natural selection perhaps not being able to properly deal
with it - if that intelligence was of a nature that took it
outside the narrow spectrum that our perception system was
designed to deal with. But that got prempted.




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