Re: science & philosophy / mechanisatic & resonating

In article <SPPM1050720062613-9979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Greg Alexander <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi John,
>I just wrote out a lengthy reply to your last post (spent too much time
>really!), and I don't believe it's worth posting. I mean, it answers
>your points, mentions some inconsistencies, etc - but the pattern from
>my perspective is that I say something, you misinterpret, I answer, you
>misinterpret... we're on fundamentally different wavelengths, and
>without fixing that what's the point.

Always possible. More so when it seems to me you are not understanding
the meanings and use of what I see are very basic terms of art.

>(if you say you want the reply I'm happy to send it - I saved it as a
>draft.)

>>>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. It sounds vaguely familiar from some of the HR
(human resource) crap that is sold to, well, HR departments. I find that
fluffy, interesting once, and then, in any organization I've seen it
tried, forgotten in a month. (That, BTW, excludes cults like EST, etc.
There it sticks, at least for those who stay.)

I really doubt there is such a thing, but I am skeptical by nature.
Having been trained in psychology as a researcher, I have very sensitive
psychobabble detectors. I call it bull*** but others seem to have sinus
congestion....

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.

>I'm not asking you to think differently. Just if we're going to speak
>we have to make an effort to understand. You accuse me of ignoring the
>evidence - but unless you understand my words you have nothing to base
>that on.

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

I'm willing to change my viewpoint when presented with
>evidence.

Not so far that I have seen.

Perhaps I already believe what your evidence implies (hence
>why I asked what you thought I believed). Perhaps checking that should
>come before more evidence?

>You did say one thing which was right in your post.

>John M Price PhD wrote:
>> in your assessment of the abstract of the abuse review, I saw
>> not one line that indicated no IG risk of abuse, Not one. You had
>> High, medium, and low risk. 'No risk' did not ever enter your thinking.

>A very good point. I was assuming that no matter what, in a
>representative sample there would be atleast a slightly higher
>likelihood of abuse if someone had been abused. I don't believe that
>being abused means you'll become an abuser, but 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.

As I said when you asked me directly, there is no evidence. Further, if
you take the review on IG transmission of sex abuse (definitive finding of
no transmission) and add the info that proximate sequelae of sex abuse are
not different from those of physical abuse based on the Boney-McCoy &
Finkelhor paper(s), it is not a large leap to count that, sans other real
findings as well controlled, the distal sequelae would not be different,
hence IG transmission is unlikely to teh same degree that is found in the
sex abuse data.

I realize this takes a bit of integration across studies.

>It seems clear to me from the studies you and Kym have supplied that
>the evidence is very difficult to gain,

Yes. So, too, with most human research, especially in areas where there
is the slightest bit of criminality involved. (That is a serious
discussion in sample, as well, BTW.)

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 important thing for me is that I can't see how these findings would
>apply to improving my counselling - that's my real viewpoint. Show me
>how IG learning affects how you counsel and I'll drop my belief. You
>see, when I counsel I deal with what's going on now, not in the past.

As long as it never enters the phone conversation, I have nothing to say.
You can believe dragons did it all.

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.

>> it seems you are having difficulty reasoning about data and applying
>> the results of research.

>All I was doing was summarising what I read (it didn't say no effect,
>it said <2.0... and I should have called that no effect). More
>importantly - you say I'm having difficulty applying the results -
>please elaborate, I want to improve my counselling. This grabs my
>attention so help me out here eh?.

See above. It can be misapplied. Hell, if an abusing parent called and
ASKED if it was because they were abused as a kid, I'd say flat NO (and
that, at present, would be correct) and that they have real, final control
over what they do as an actor iin the world, and they are responsible for
that action.

>Moving on from the IG research now... (Note I started this thread
>separate to the other one specifically to talk about how different
>people approach things - and so you could keep discussing the research
>in the other thread.)

>John said:
>> You are acting like an impudent 12yo who is dead certain
>> in his ignorance that he knows it all already.

>I'm pleased you see the link between "ignorance" and "certain he knows
>it all" - you didn't get it earlier in the Peck & Darwin comments. It's
>a pity that rather than acknowledging that it comes out in another
>insulting comment.

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.

>The evidence you've provided I accept to the degree I stated above.

Which reflects your training, likely directly.

For
>the rest of your comments, if you thought you were actually addressing
>my thoughts then I can see this would be frustrating for you when I
>find it irrelevant.

So you want to continue to think assumptions are beliefs?

>Try reading my actual words - you'll find that I'm much more flexible
>to a counter argument which actually addresses my point. Perhaps you're
>assuming I'm like someone else you have known?

Wilba maybe?

>> >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?
>>
>> Only in the most muddleheaded of ways. Don't you think that if they were
>> the same, the word use would be, well, the same?

>Let me let you in on something - if I thought they were the same, I
>would define them the same. Read my words - for instance, an assumption
>seeks no proof, a belief may or may not seek one. That makes them
>different.

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

>> Drop the belief crap. Grow up and use the terms of art. <snip>
>> Besides, it isn't church. There is no faith involved. <snip>
>> Hey, Greg, did you notice that different words have
>> different meanings?

>Oh damn... this would explain a lot.
>Belief is quite different to faith, in my book.
>(Faith might be closer to an assumption actually.)
>A religion can include certain beliefs. So can shopping.

>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.

>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?

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

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

>Again, please don't make wild judgements - just read what I've said
>before you decide what's in my head (or maybe even DON'T decide, read
>and when you don't understand, ask a question!).

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.
If you cannot afford a dictionary, the internet will provide one for you:
m-w.com)

>John M Price PhD wrote:
>> Greg Alexander <galexand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > "What evidence would it take to prove your beliefs wrong?"
>> > I wasn't asking you that question...
>> >> Well, sorry, I thought it was a good question. On your part, however,
>> you should have known the answer from the

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

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.

>I didn't ask it, yet you attributed
>the meaning anyway. That's a bad connection.

>As far as insults go, I know that's the way you work. So again, please
>jump on what I DO say not on what you guess,

I do, and did. You are still acting like a mule in need of a large club.
Recall the previous discussion of anecdotes? Yet, right here, your
incorrect use of hte term is back.

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

otherwise what's the
>point? If it was just you and me throwing ideas back and forth I'd
>throw the insults back same as you do, fair play and all. This is a
>public forum so if I think you've said something wrong I'll do my best
>to spell it out clearly rather than getting emotional about it.

>As such, I'll continue to call your views "different to mine", you can
>call mine ignorant - just if it's valid please back it up (there will
>be evidence! - you see, you are correct that I'm far from perfect or
>always right!)

Insofar as people have tried to explicate some methods of reading a
scientific paper, and you have failed to absorb that info, nor, apparently
have gone to any length on your own to educate yourself on the basic
methods of social science research, just what am I to think?

>Greg

>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 the idiot tabgnid thinks so, but I am beginning to doubt he can
actually read for content informational, as opposed to narrative text.)
MID please? I have specifically and clearly stated where I am at in this
regard expressly because of this lie you imply about me.

(Should have predicted you'd misunderstand me and this screed - give
Sylvia Browne a run for her money!)

(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmprice@xxxxxxxxxx
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really
good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change
their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really
do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are
human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I
cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or
religion.
- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

[Note from jmprice: Just to be fair, the Mormons did change their attitude
towards blacks allowing them priesthood, probably with some pressure from
JC. That would be Jimmy Carter, President of the United States at the
time. The question still remains, though: If the prophecy and direction
was from JC (the god one, Jesus Christ), wouldn't god have done it right
the first time?]



'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
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.
.