From: Cathy Reason <Cathym.nul>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:11:15 +0100
Archived: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:30:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary


>From: Eugene Frison <cthulhu_calls.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:47:40 -0500
>Subject: Re: Ufology And Psychiatry - Summary

<very large snip>

>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.

Ok, let's leave aside your claims about the reliability of human
perception, since I think we've established that these hinge
entirely on your rather idiosyncratic notion of reliability.
Never mind. Let's turn to your other claims.

First, you claim that much or most of psychology does not depend
on "operationalisms". Let's clear up one potential source of
confusion at the outset - what actually do you mean by
"operationalisms", a term you appear to have invented? If you
mean operationalized measures, then your claim is simply untrue,
since pretty much the whole of modern psychology relies on
operationalized definitions of one sort or another. This
includes the qualitative methods such as Participant Observation
which I believe you referred to in an earlier post. If you know
of any significant examples to the contrary, then I think it's
time you produced them.

On the other hand if you mean something else by
"operationalisms", then perhaps you can explain what that is.

Second, you claim that even if it is true that all modern
psychology depends on operational measures, and even if these
measures are systemnatically flawed, this would not alter the
big picture for psychology. How you think the big picture for
psychology would remain unchanged even if the whole basis of its
observations were shown to be systematically corrupted is a
mystery to me. Perhaps you can explain.

Third, you appear to be suggesting that since psychology uses a
lot of complicated statistical procedures, and since a lot of
these procedures are used in other sciences, then psychology
must be a science. This is faulty logic. It isn't the technique
that makes a science, but how it is used. The best method in the
world will only yield nonsense results if it is used on bad
observational data.

Lastly you claim that most psychology does not depend on
Cognitivism. In an earlier post I listed the Gibsonians, the
psychophysicists and a handful of applied (that is,
atheoretical) experimenters as examples that don't. To these I
should have added some counseling psychologists and a handful of
Behaviorists (there are still some of these knocking around
somewhere). But that's about it. If you know of any other
examples, then once again, I think it's time you produced them.


Cathy




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.