Re: science & philosophy / mechanisatic & resonating


John M Price PhD wrote:
> Greg Alexander <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>From the replies you've given, it would seem that I'm a more lateral
> >thinker, you are more focussed.
>
> Well, maybe so. Focus is certainly required to develop information, and
> actually any information. Even that in areas you'd likely see as
> 'lateral'. That is a guess. But I have never seen that term in cognitive
> psych, intro psych, etc.

Interesting. I wonder what that means?

Lateral thinking generally refers to coming at something from a
different angle, one that may not be as accepted. This allows for fresh
ideas, and by looking at something from a different angle also makes it
easier to see flaws in existing ideas. The Belbin Team Type of "Plant"
is often considered to have a lateral view.

> > I'm willing to make an effort to narrow my focus to see
> > what you're saying, if you're willing to go broader.
>
> I do write tersely, but it is not a different language.

Wide or narrow view is still the same language.

> Frankly, if you did not write what you meant, then you should
> have written something else that actually reflected what you meant.

I wrote what I meant, you saw what you believed.
There are 2 solutions - I write far more detail so you can't misread
it, or you try to understand what I'm saying. I'm trying for the first.
You can try for the second if you'd like.

> >I was ignoring that 1 study found no link, and I'll accept
> >that as a possibility now.
>
> No, ISTR there were three. The one that lasted through the sifting was a
> well controlled one. The other two (with RR < 2) did not make that cut.

Yes. I was ignoring the 2 that were considered to be bad studies.

> > there are conflicting findings, and as such, it's still guesswork.
> > That's my viewpoint on the current research.
>
> And it is in fact an incorrect, or at least flat, unscentific view.
>
> Generally science operates in the positive. Unless demonstrated, or at
> least unless there is a bit of evidence, then whatever is postulated is
> not there for all practical purposes. As such it is best to say that the
> idea has not been supported, but is still being examined.

The problem being that it has been supported in 1 good study (and 6
'bad' ones), and not supported in another good study (and 2 'bad'
ones). I agree that it still requires examination.

I'm not clear on science's view on that, though I appreciate you saying
what you said. I assume that once a study has found support, then to be
sure of no support a future study would have to find an alternative
that encompasses the original findings?

> >The important thing for me is that I can't see how these findings
> >would apply to improving my counselling
>
> As long as it never enters the phone conversation, I have nothing to say.

Cool. For me it doesn't.

> For instance if someone says that they are abusing their kid, don't ask
> them if they've been abused. There is from my read no data to support
> that as a real factor yet. Second, if you prompt with that, they may
> report that falsely they had and lead you to reaffirm your incorrect
> position (that there IS IG transmission). Third, if you prompt them with
> this you may give them some wierd psychological out to diminish their
> responsibility for their actions, and that may follow right into court (it
> has in the US). Fourth, you've moved the discussion to the past, ignoring
> a kid in the present who, since you've now done all this in the abusing
> parents' favor, may endure more such abuse, blamed on the parents' past,
> until a real assist hits the home.

All good reasons why I don't.

And that is why I'm not that interested - because it can't apply to
my counselling.

Sorry, that's a little harsh - you have no way of knowing that I just
don't counsel that way, so it may seem like I was ignoring how it could
be applied. (In another thread I agreed that delving into the past was
unnecessary but we haven't clarified it much.)

> I may have been too harsh there, as it (they, actually, with your idiocy
> about belief == assumption) was all in one post, not many, but damn I was
> so frustrated at what a dictionary would have done (besides being thrown.)
> And yes, I do not care a whit for peck, and you missed the Darwin aspect.
> Really. Or you have misinterpreted my stated position badly.

What did I miss in the Darwin aspect?
I was only replying to you equating 'knowledge' with 'certain they know
what to do'. I found both quotes valid and interesting. As far as I
know I didn't disagree with any of either, so what do you think I
missed?

> >The evidence you've provided I accept to the degree I stated above.
>
> Which reflects your training, likely directly.

Yes, I've taken conflicting evidence to indicate there may or may not
be a relationship. You've taken conflicting evidence to indicate no
support for a relationship.

> >Perhaps you're assuming I'm like someone else you have known?
>
> Wilba maybe?

I have no idea, I'd just like it if you understood what I said, because
then you would either agree with me, OR help me learn - and either is
worthwhile for me.

> >> >I know an assumption is something accepted without proof,
> >> >where a belief is taken to be true (with or without proof).
> >> >Any assumptions of science are beliefs, aren't they?

> No, belief always has a basis. The basis may be faith. The basis may be
> past evidence. The basis may be probabilistic based on limited evidence.
> Still, there is a basis. If there was a basis to an assumption, it would
> not be axiomatic (to mix fields).
>
> >That definition I gave can be right or wrong - but at least address
> >your criticism to what I say, not something that's not there.
>
> It was wrong. It is wrong. Sheesh. A dictionary? OED maybe

I did get the definitions from the dictionary, originally.
Assuming that I didn't does not help your understanding.

Assumption: "A thing that is accepted as true or certain to happen,
without proof"
Belief: "Something accepted as true or real, or accepting that
something exists"

So back to 'axiomatic'... which is defined as "self-evident or
unquestionable"
or 'axiom' .. defined as "a statement or proposition which is regarded
as being
established, accepted, or self-evidently true"

Would you say that the sun and moon and planets and stars all revolving
around us was considered established, accepted, or self-evidently true?
Was it an axiom?

It was certainly wrong, but there was a basis for it.

That brings us full circle to the beliefs of science.

> >Look, I use the word belief for 2 reasons
> >1) Too many people give anecdotes as fact.
>
> Anecdotes usually ARE facts. People HAVE experienced them.
> They are not, though, useful as evidence.

You're absolutely right. I meant "generalised fact".
This miscommunication is squarely my fault.

> >2) Often people are not aware that their own ideas are
> > opinions or metaphors.
>
> Really? Are you assuming ALL discussions are metaphors? Are you turning
> now into some pomo idiot? Words have no relation to the real world? Ever
> hear of the Sokal Hoax?

Firstly, please note the word "OR"...... opinions OR metaphors
Now, how on earth did you get that "ALL" must be metaphors.

Secondly, I didn't say discussions, I said ideas (read what I say).
If you look up "ideas" in the dictionary, it's actually defined as
"opinion or belief"

What's a "pomo" idiot? :) Never heard of the Sokal Hoax.
Sounds interesting.

> >It would be great to rely solely on science and evidence. It's a big
> >world though, and recognising what are beliefs is a step towards
> >recognising what needs to be explored and studied.
>
> I generally, here especially, base most of what I write on what is in
> front of me (others' posts), or what I have actually studied to some
> degree. I do rely, for the most part, solely on science and evidence,

That is a big fear of mine. I know how you've misinterpreted what I've
said, and I know you believe your replies are based on my words, you
would consider it an observation. As observation a big part of science
- what does this say for science and evidence?

> with a bit of reason thrown in (see above integrating a couple of papers).
> At least that is a real attempt.

I attempt to be scientific by identifying beliefs. It's a real attempt.

> Gees, when able I actually do the homework I expect of folk.
> (Just who got the review abstract? Just who
> got the review on IG sex abuse years ago? Think about those
> things, Greg.) (And thanks to Kym for letting us all have access
> to the real paper!)

Each time you bring up my lack of interest in the study that is not
relevant to me as evidence of me not being scientific, I just shake my
head.

I don't know how this would have gone if the study had been applicable
to my daily life - but I do know I would have spent far more time
looking into it.

> You see, I have this thing about opinions. They are to be valued in
> direct proportion to their degree of informedness.

Absolutely. Except if the information related to group beliefs.

> I read what you write. When you say anecdotes are not facts, and
> that crap about belief above, what am I to think?
> (Please get a dictionary. )

Again - you made a constructive reply, I missed a word.
Read the dictionary yourself.

> >The thing is, if I'd asked that question, then you could give your
> >opinion that I should have known!
>
> Yes, that, saying you should have known, would assume you actually
> knew about how science works in terms of acceptance of findings.

Ahh, see how you don't address my point in the slightest. But you do
keep addressing your own point. Give yourself a pat on the back.

> I don't, now, think you do.

Ah well, just don't let understanding another person's position get in
the way of what you think. :-)

> No, that's not an insult, but an honest assessment of your writings about
> research here. You did not go the science route in your education.

Don't try to be politely insulting, you know I studied Psych as an
undergrad.
Feel free to say "that makes it even worse!" etc.

> Really, what am I to think? I am really reading what you wrote.

:-)

> >ps. I also have a strong belief that we are nowhere near knowing
> >everything (which may not be possible but who knows), and it's foolish
> >to think we know everything. This is something I think I won't change.
> >Is this an ignorant belief?
>
> Why would it be? And I am assuming that you think I think otherwise.

I know this is obvious. And I know you don't think otherwise. But I
suspect you think I've got some weird beliefs and that I'm not open to
learning, and this is the one of the few beliefs I have that I consider
unshakeable, everything else I consider open to change.

> MID please? I have specifically and clearly stated where I am at in this
> regard expressly because of this lie you imply about me.

I wasn't implying anything. I was expecting you to say it was a valid
belief actually.
Greg



'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://psychcentral.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush Remarks On Intelligent Design Theory Fuel Debate
    ... science cannot prove that something, for which there is no positive evidence to support its existence, it should be discussed as science. ... The basis for science is to provide EXPLANATIONS for what exists; not to waste its time with the metaphysical which cannot be verified. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: science & philosophy / mechanisatic & resonating
    ... >evidence - but unless you understand my words you have nothing to base ... >> not one line that indicated no IG risk of abuse, ... Generally science operates in the positive. ... belief always has a basis. ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated)
  • Re: Science and Faith (Serious)
    ... Both are based entirely on faith with one claiming superiority over the other on the basis of so called science. ... There is nothing whatsoever that either can claim as real evidence other than snippets extrapolated into a belief system. ... No evidence exists corroborating the existence of God, the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge, or the talking snake thingy. ... What science does not do is nail up a "this is how it is" story and then burn people at the stake for daring to deny it. ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Casanova folds like cheap suit.
    ... considered the Bible to be a science text, ... pointed out that accepting the Bible over scientific ... scientific evidence contradict the Bible, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT - Intelligent Design
    ... >>>Since when is Don expected to get some facts before opining? ... >>>By any rational rules of evidence, ... > and are now accepting that ID is a theory that merits further ... science has proven over and over that what was once ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)