From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:34:03 -0400 Archived: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:49:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:07:26 +0000 >Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:45:42 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study >>>From: Joe McGonagle <joe.mcgonagle.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:12:14 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Participation In Psychology Dissertation Study ><snip> >>>I think any academic attempt to study aspects of ufology are >>>worth encouraging. >>More psycho social babble, Joe. Consider the topic; Psychology >>Dissertation Study. >>Once you posit the belief aspect you are opening the door to the >>prospect of all witnesses having a psychotic event each time >>they have seem something odd in the sky. >Only if you think that there is only one explanation to all UFO >reports. >>Let's not forget that we are always dealing with a group of >>licensed individuals who are working with a pseudo-science that >>has no scientific constant. Catch as catch can is the name of >>the game so there is no sense in introducing this subject as a >>viable aspect to the phenomenon. >In this case we appear to be dealing with a student attempting to >write a UFO-oriented dissertation. >>I really don't care what group Andrew is working with. They are >>not dealing with hard-core cases; they are attempting to stain >>it by intro- ducing a mental aspect to it-regardless who are >>reporting, what they are reporting- in what detail they are >>reporting and what is backing up the report. >So you maintain that there are zero cases which have a "mental >aspect" to them? I would argue the opposite - all cases have a >"mental aspect" to them - whether that aspect is around >perception, predisposition, or any number of "mental" processes >a witness goes through in an attempt to identify what it is they >are observing or experiencing. >>Any damn fool can find the nut cases out there and lump them in >>and poison the whole data pool. >Ah, so you already know that that is what Andrew is attempting to >do? Next time you look into your crystal ball, please can you >send me next Friday's winning lottery numbers? >>And cut the poor-mouthing Joe; your not fooling anyone. If I ever >>see anything positive/upbeat come out of your postings, it will be >>a day of wonder. >Perhaps you should review your own input on this List for the >last 3 years or more before you criticise me for being >"downbeat". When there is something worth being upbeat about, >then I will happily post it - like an academic taking an >interest in ufology, for example. >Ufologists often bemoan the lack of academic interest in >ufology, then when there is some their reaction hardly >encourages further interest. This appears to me to be more about the people who arrive to the table after dinner has been served and the plates cleared away. Those arriving too late must depend on those who actually dined as to what was served, what it tasted like, how it appeared on the plate and what was actually in evidence. Did those arriving late believe those who were actually there as to taste appearance and content? My question is; who the hell cares what the late comers believe? It's all about what the early arrivers experienced then the accuracy of their reports to the tardy dinner goers. They passed on their reviews of the meal-anecdotal-or shot pictures of the table. They might have even taken samples for later analysis. Someone poking around in the late comer's heads later on to see what they believed has little meaning to the actual meal-does it? Track down the chef and verify the claims of the on-time guests. If the shrinks want to go after someone, go after those who actually ate the meal, not some after the fact participator in the after dinner conversation. By concentrating on the second parties your academics are just muddying the waters and damning the experiencer with the lame observations of the second and non-involved parties. Not very 'scientific' if you ask me. Psychiatry is not an exact science, nor even close to it. When their first observation is that the actual witness's sighting is all in the mind-part of a belief system-my interest fades. Seems to me they have plenty on their plates with ordinary old fashioned religion that they could examine. Why mess around with the mind-set of a few interested in the phenomenon? Don Ledger 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