Thread

British Psychological Society

Teddy, 20 May 2006 02:45:26

Nigel Meek, 20 May 2006 07:33:34

As a paid-up Graduate Member of the BPS I read in the most recent issue of its journal, The Psychologist, a letter concerning their submission to the consultation process. The journal is also available to BPS members as a PDF download. I meant to upload it onto the Backlash Smartgroup but for some reason the BPS website was down at the time and then I promptly forgot about the whole thing! Apologies. I’ve done it now.

Anyhow, the letter criticises the BPS’s submission. The BPS’s response seems to be, “Well, we gave you time to have your say so don’t blame us if what we write is nonsense.”

I’m not sure who the signatories of the letter are. The fact that only one of them has a job description suggests that they be “only” students themselves but I can’t be sure.

Nigel Meek

Libertarian Alliance: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Society for Individual Freedom: http://www.individualist.org.uk
Campaign Against Censorship: http://www.dlas.org.uk

Author wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished, disbelieving, flabbergasted!
> http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html
> This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body (notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims; apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a personal note to this lot in due course...
> Teddy

zak, 20 May 2006 10:38:24

THey are citing Zillman and Bryant, another piece of so-called research
which is utter bullshit and does not stand up to any kind of close
examination at all.

Original Message:
-----------------

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk, 20 May 2006 10:38:24

Hi All,

I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished,
disbelieving, flabbergasted!

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html

This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how
this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body
(notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims;
apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of
children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been
hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a
personal note to this lot in due course...

Teddy

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4836

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Teddy, 20 May 2006 14:36:11

Hi Nigel,

It seems that most of the signatories hold fairly senior academic posts.

http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/dbs/psy/staff/lectstaff.htm

T.

Author wrote:
> As a paid-up Graduate Member of the BPS I read in the most recent issue of its journal, The Psychologist, a letter concerning their submission to the consultation process. The journal is also available to BPS members as a PDF download. I meant to upload it onto the Backlash Smartgroup but for some reason the BPS website was down at the time and then I promptly forgot about the whole thing! Apologies. I’ve done it now.
> Anyhow, the letter criticises the BPS’s submission. The BPS’s response seems to be, “Well, we gave you time to have your say so don’t blame us if what we write is nonsense.”
> I’m not sure who the signatories of the letter are. The fact that only one of them has a job description suggests that they be “only” students themselves but I can’t be sure.
> Nigel Meek
> Libertarian Alliance: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
> Society for Individual Freedom: http://www.individualist.org.uk
> Campaign Against Censorship: http://www.dlas.org.uk
> Author wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished, disbelieving, flabbergasted!
> > http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html
> > This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body (notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims; apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a personal note to this lot in due course...
> > Teddy
>
>

Nigel Meek, 20 May 2006 16:44:48

Teddy - I stand (happily) corrected. Thanks for taking a look. I was being lazy!

Nigel

Author wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
> It seems that most of the signatories hold fairly senior academic posts.
> http://www.hud.ac.uk/hhs/dbs/psy/staff/lectstaff.htm
> T.
> Author wrote:
> > As a paid-up Graduate Member of the BPS I read in the most recent issue of its journal, The Psychologist, a letter concerning their submission to the consultation process. The journal is also available to BPS members as a PDF download. I meant to upload it onto the Backlash Smartgroup but for some reason the BPS website was down at the time and then I promptly forgot about the whole thing! Apologies. I’ve done it now.
> > Anyhow, the letter criticises the BPS’s submission. The BPS’s response seems to be, “Well, we gave you time to have your say so don’t blame us if what we write is nonsense.”
> > I’m not sure who the signatories of the letter are. The fact that only one of them has a job description suggests that they be “only” students themselves but I can’t be sure.
> > Nigel Meek
> > Libertarian Alliance: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
> > Society for Individual Freedom: http://www.individualist.org.uk
> > Campaign Against Censorship: http://www.dlas.org.uk
> > Author wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished, disbelieving, flabbergasted!
> > > http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html
> > > This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body (notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims; apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a personal note to this lot in due course...
> > > Teddy
> >
> >
>
>

demolitionred, 23 May 2006 11:55:27

We also have responses on the backlash site from a number of leading psychologists -- on the backlash site -- who criticised thr submission and give alternate views on the effect of porn on behavour..

Teddy, 24 May 2006 02:27:25

I would suggest we might lobby these learned folks into trying to get the original BPS submission retracted?

T.

Author wrote:
> We also have responses on the backlash site from a number of leading psychologists -- on the backlash site -- who criticised thr submission and give alternate views on the effect of porn on behavour..

demolitionred, 24 May 2006 16:48:37

Exactly what has been happening.

Paul Tavener, 25 May 2006 06:46:31

Sounds like anyone who has anything to do with the BPS should be writing to the Home Office and the BPS with opposing viewpoints and trying to persuade others to do likewise.

The opinion of the BPS might well be held in higher regard than many others because (at least theoretically) they might be expected to have relevant professional insight and expertise in such matters.

That the BPS appears to have been high jacked is a very serious matter and it is vitally important that the damage done is minimised. When weighing these things the view of one professional psychologist will count for hundreds of lay people.

Think what would happen if thousands of members of the public started lobbying the Government about an impending asteroid impact that had been reported in the papers. What would happen? Answer the Government would very rapidly ask a few of the top professionals if this was true? If the answer was no then Joe publics view would be dismissed outright.

Psychology is not the exact science that Astronomy is, but the similarities are sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.

Graham Marsden, 26 May 2006 18:04:13

Hi there,

nigel@libertarian.co.uk wrote:

> Anyhow, the letter criticises the BPS\x{2019}s submission. The
> BPS\x{2019}s response seems to be, \x{201C}Well, we gave you time to have
> your say so don\x{2019}t blame us if what we write is nonsense.\x{201D}

I, too, was astonished to see the original response effectively claiming
to be the "official response" of the BPS and the reply to the letter
seems to be nothing more than an incredible attempt to weasel out of any
responsibility for it.

I hope that those who wrote the letter have also sent it to the Home
Office expressing their views that:

"This response appears to have been made without any wide consultation.
It also seems to fly in the face of the Society\x{2019}s guideline that no
recommendations can be made on the basis of partial or selective
evidence. If any of us were given the job of refereeing this report for
publication in a peer-refereed journal, we would have to recommend
rejection on the basis of an inadequate literature review and
insufficient rationale for the conclusions."

Cheers,
Graham.

SnowdropExplodes, 26 May 2006 19:16:42

I think we should be just as concerned that the BPS chose two psychologists who specialise in forensics to compose the response, instead of two psychologists specialising in sexuality.

This implies that they believe the appropriate viewpoint is to look at porn as a criminal matter first. It may be that they looked at the paper and decided, "ah, this deals with a legal matter, we give it to the forensic psychologists." If that is the case, then they made a category error and consequently chose people unsuited to the task. If they actually believed that "extreme" pornography is inherently criminal, then their choice of authors for their response shows a deeper-rooted prejudice.

This would explain why the view expressed is rooted in criminality rather than sexuality. As we have noted before, legal and law enforcement professionals (which would, I presume, include forensic psychologists) encounter porn mainly when it coincides with crime, which must colour their perceptions of pornography when it comes to responding to proposals such as these.

Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Hi All,

I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished, disbelieving, flabbergasted!

http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html

This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body (notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims; apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a personal note to this lot in due course...

Teddy

--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash

To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4836

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Teddy, 27 May 2006 06:09:12

I am doubtful the authors were chosen to represent the BPS; rather, it all smacks very heavily of the response having been hijacked by a group of researchers of a pro-legislation, anti-porn mindset. If these people hadn't come forward to take advantage of the society's archaic practices around such matters, it is likely no submission would have been made at all. IMO...

T.

Author wrote:
> I think we should be just as concerned that the BPS chose two psychologists who specialise in forensics to compose the response, instead of two psychologists specialising in sexuality.
> This implies that they believe the appropriate viewpoint is to look at porn as a criminal matter first. It may be that they looked at the paper and decided, "ah, this deals with a legal matter, we give it to the forensic psychologists." If that is the case, then they made a category error and consequently chose people unsuited to the task. If they actually believed that "extreme" pornography is inherently criminal, then their choice of authors for their response shows a deeper-rooted prejudice.
> This would explain why the view expressed is rooted in criminality rather than sexuality. As we have noted before, legal and law enforcement professionals (which would, I presume, include forensic psychologists) encounter porn mainly when it coincides with crime, which must colour their perceptions of pornography when it comes to responding to proposals such as these.
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> Teddysmith2@hotmail.co.uk wrote: Hi All,
> I have just read this consultation response from the BPS and am astonished, disbelieving, flabbergasted!
> http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/bps.html
> This is worse, in my view, than the Mediawatch effort. I do not see how this could have been a serious submission from a professional academic body (notice the paucity of citations and evidence to back up their claims; apparently "extreme" porn of this kind involves the "sexualisation of children"). I would support the view of Backlash that this has clearly been hijacked by a clique of interested individuals. I will also be writing a personal note to this lot in due course...
> Teddy
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4836
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Paul C. Dickie, 28 May 2006 17:58:23

In message <4400219.1148455254501.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
>Exactly what has been happening.

Exactitude and psychology are diametrically opposite concepts.

--
< Paul >

Amelie, 29 May 2006 02:07:47

just don't know where to look for these "We also have responses on the
backlash site from a number of leading psychologists -- on the backlash
site -- who criticised thr submission and give alternate views on the effect
of porn on behavour.."
can you give a url and directions?
went to backlash but could not find them.

----- Original Message -----

, 29 May 2006 02:07:47

To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:20 AM

> Exactly what has been happening.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4873
>
>

Teddy, 29 May 2006 06:03:41

Indeed...

Author wrote:
> In message <4400219.1148455254501.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
> >, demolitionred@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Exactly what has been happening.
> Exactitude and psychology are diametrically opposite concepts.
> --
> < Paul >

zak, 29 May 2006 07:54:29

Original Message:
-----------------

admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 29 May 2006 07:54:29

.

Psychology is not the exact science that Astronomy is, but the similarities
are sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.

Actually, it's also worth pointing out that psychology is about as exact a
science as... weather forecasting. IE, quite often WRONG because of too
many variables.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Paul C. Dickie, 29 May 2006 12:14:40

In message <944866.1148503382749.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
, admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>Psychology is not the exact science that Astronomy is, but the similarities are
>sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.

Hardly, for psychology isn't a science at all.

Contrary to Maureen Lipmann's famous and fatuous assertion in the BT
advert that "an 'ology makes you a scientist", it does nothing of the
sort. Is theology a science?

A scientist makes a guess, uses data from observations or experiments to
test that guess and, if the data do not match the guess, the guess is
rejected as being *wrong*.

However, a theologian or a psychologist is more likely to change or
select the data to fit the guess. Such creatures are not scientists,
nor are they even competent philosophers.

--
< Paul >

Amelie, 03 Jun 2006 10:41:51

Paul,

As a practising research psychologist, I can only wonder that an intelligent
man can give so little credence to a rigorously self-aware profession.

All professions comprise phalanxes of variable human beings with their own
agendas: idealists, conformists, anarchists and self-seekers, manipulators,
opportunists, game-players, saints, idiots, dreamers and mental giants.

Psychology has debated its own diversity for over a hundred years and is
possibly more balanced than many other arts/sciences/philosophies as if
freely admits to elements of all three.

Instead of alienating those of us who are working towards greater mutual
understanding, why not use what we have to offer?

Amelie

----- Original Message -----

"Paul C. Dickie" , 03 Jun 2006 10:41:51

To:
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:32 AM

> In message <944866.1148503382749.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>
> , admin@ofwatch.org.uk wrote:
>>Psychology is not the exact science that Astronomy is, but the
>>similarities are
>>sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.
>
> Hardly, for psychology isn't a science at all.
>
> Contrary to Maureen Lipmann's famous and fatuous assertion in the BT
> advert that "an 'ology makes you a scientist", it does nothing of the
> sort. Is theology a science?
>
> A scientist makes a guess, uses data from observations or experiments to
> test that guess and, if the data do not match the guess, the guess is
> rejected as being *wrong*.
>
> However, a theologian or a psychologist is more likely to change or
> select the data to fit the guess. Such creatures are not scientists,
> nor are they even competent philosophers.
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4910
>
>

deno, 03 Jun 2006 13:44:25

In a message dated 03/06/2006 01:46:00 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 03 Jun 2006 13:44:25

Teddy, 03 Jun 2006 15:24:11

I think you're maybe confusing astronomy with astrology!

Anyway, bearing in mind that evidence of harm doesn't seem to matter to the HO, the input of psychologists is potentially quite important as far as legislating (or not) on the basis if intuition goes. This is why our lobbying of the BPS is important.

T.

> With respect, I can't see any comparison between astronomy which has no
> scientific basis, and is widely considered superstition, and psychology. Must
> declare an interest here as I work for doctors who are consultant
> psychologists. You are quite correct to say it is not exact but the comparison with
> weather forecasting is good because during the course of a long life have noticed
> how weather forecasts are now much more accurate than they used to be.
> Obviously this is due to the advance of science over the years and the situation
> is similar with psychology which has increased in importance and treatment of
> mental health problems are often successful.
> Maybe we should not be too concerned that some psychologists are against us
> in that they support the Consultation. Surely our best bet is to find one or
> two who will support us, at least to say that the proposed new law will be
> futile as it will have no effect on the rare psychopath it is aimed at and just
> persecute harmless people.
> Would it be worth paying a suitable Consultant Psychiatrist for a positive
> report which our reps could present to HO?
> deno posted 3rd June

deno, 03 Jun 2006 17:35:08

In a message dated 03/06/2006 12:24:12 GMT Standard Time, CORODENCO writes:

a message dated 03/06/2006 01:46:00 GMT Standard Time,
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 03 Jun 2006 17:35:08

Teddy, 04 Jun 2006 00:51:28

:o)

Ted.

Author wrote:
> In a message dated 03/06/2006 12:24:12 GMT Standard Time, CORODENCO writes:
> a message dated 03/06/2006 01:46:00 GMT Standard Time,
> zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

: admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 04 Jun 2006 00:51:28

> Subject: [backlash] RE: British Psychological Society
> .
> > are sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.
> CORRECTION. I have to withdraw my remark about astromony as for some reason
> I had astrology in my mind when I wrote that. My ruler, you've guessed it,
> Uranus!, has let me down. Sorry. deno re-posted 3rd June
> Actually, it's also worth pointing out that psychology is about as exact a
> science as... weather forecasting. IE, quite often WRONG because of too
> many variables.>
> With respect, I can't see any comparison between astronomy which has no
> scientific basis, and is widely considered superstition, and psychology. Must
> declare an interest here as I work for doctors who are consultant
> psychologists. You are quite correct to say it is not exact but the comparison with
> weather forecasting is good because during the course of a long life have noticed
> how weather forecasts are now much more accurate than they used to be.
> Obviously this is due to the advance of science over the years and the situation
> is similar with psychology which has increased in importance and treatment of
> mental health problems are often successful.
> Maybe we should not be too concerned that some psychologists are against us
> in that they support the Consultation. Surely our best bet is to find one or
> two who will support us, at least to say that the proposed new law will be
> futile as it will have no effect on the rare psychopath it is aimed at and
> just persecute harmless people.
> Would it be worth paying a suitable Consultant Psychiatrist for a positive
> report which our reps could present to HO?
> deno posted 3rd June

Graham Marsden, 05 Jun 2006 02:17:53

Hi there,

CORODENCO@aol.com wrote:

> With respect, I can't see any comparison between astronomy which has no
> scientific basis, and is widely considered superstition, and
> psychology.

Ahem, ITYM "Astrology"...! :-)

Cheers,
Graham.

snowflake, 05 Jun 2006 02:30:54

[ Attachment Removed: ]

Paul C. Dickie, 05 Jun 2006 07:47:39

Of the two, I'd say that astrology was the more scientific.

--
< Paul >

Arron Fitzgerald, 05 Jun 2006 10:41:18

I think some of us are confusing 'Astrology' with 'Astronomy'!

Arron
----- Original Message -----

: CORODENCO@aol.com, 05 Jun 2006 10:41:18

Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] RE: British Psychological Society

In a message dated 03/06/2006 01:46:00 GMT Standard Time, zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk writes:

om: admin@ofwatch.org.uk, 05 Jun 2006 10:41:18

Subject: [backlash] RE: British Psychological Society
.

are sufficient to be very worried indeed about this development.

Actually, it's also worth pointing out that psychology is about as exact a
science as... weather forecasting. IE, quite often WRONG because of too
many variables.>

With respect, I can't see any comparison between astronomy which has no scientific basis, and is widely considered superstition, and psychology. Must declare an interest here as I work for doctors who are consultant psychologists. You are quite correct to say it is not exact but the comparison with weather forecasting is good because during the course of a long life have noticed how weather forecasts are now much more accurate than they used to be. Obviously this is due to the advance of science over the years and the situation is similar with psychology which has increased in importance and treatment of mental health problems are often successful.

Maybe we should not be too concerned that some psychologists are against us in that they support the Consultation. Surely our best bet is to find one or two who will support us, at least to say that the proposed new law will be futile as it will have no effect on the rare psychopath it is aimed at and just persecute harmless people.

Would it be worth paying a suitable Consultant Psychiatrist for a positive report which our reps could present to HO?

deno posted 3rd June

If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a questionnaire
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/backlash

To leave the group, email: backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com

Report abuse

Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)

Paul C. Dickie, 06 Jun 2006 11:09:02

In message <005b01c686f1$1a9b6630$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
wrote:
>Paul,
>
>As a practising research psychologist, I can only wonder that an intelligent
>man can give so little credence to a rigorously self-aware profession.

I can only suppose, then, that you have never heard of Occam's razor --
entiae non sunt multiplicanda propter necessitatem -- or that you
somehow believe it should not apply to psychology.

>All professions comprise phalanxes of variable human beings with their own
>agendas: idealists, conformists, anarchists and self-seekers, manipulators,
>opportunists, game-players, saints, idiots, dreamers and mental giants.

Into which category (or categories) would you place Burt?

>Psychology has debated its own diversity for over a hundred years and is
>possibly more balanced than many other arts/sciences/philosophies as if
>freely admits to elements of all three.

Reading "as if" as a possible Freudian slip and passing on from that, it
is patently and inherently impossible for a true science to contain
elements from art or philosophy. In art or philosophy, it is possible
for observations to contradict one's beliefs and yet for those beliefs
somehow to be considered valid; in science, it isn't. Indeed, one might
reasonably argue that it is the duty of an artist to depict the world as
s/he sees it or how s/he would like it to be; it is the duty of a
scientist to describe (and, where possible, to explain) the world as it
actually is.

--
< Paul >

snowflake, 07 Jun 2006 13:15:30

On 04/06/06, Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> Of the two, I'd say that astrology was the more scientific.

I'd have to agree. Astrology has a core paradigm that has shifted
over time, based on empirical evidence. Psychology has a group of
core principles that shift over time based on who's arguing what, with
little empirical evidence on which these principles are based.

Psychology has no core paradigm, does not fully adhere to the
scientific method and ignores empirical testing when it suits it. It
is not, therefore, a science. As best it exists in that grey area
between a science and a humanities subject: 'social science'.

Zoe

Arron Fitzgerald, 08 Jun 2006 17:41:43

Perhaps we could apply the principle of Occam's razor to the messages in
this group - emails must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

Some of these threads are veering off-topic are counter-productive to the
campaign, so I'll just say one thing with respect to sciencific
investigation being inherently and necessarily devoid of philosophical
elements - after Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, we know that
all sciences are founded upon philosophical paradigms, without which
empirical observations lack structural coherence. In no other empirical
discipline is this more evident that psychology.

Arron (posted 0800 8/6/06/)

----- Original Message -----

"Paul C. Dickie" , 08 Jun 2006 17:41:43

To:
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:56 AM

> In message <005b01c686f1$1a9b6630$6401a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie
> wrote:
> >Paul,
> >
> >As a practising research psychologist, I can only wonder that an
intelligent
> >man can give so little credence to a rigorously self-aware profession.
>
> I can only suppose, then, that you have never heard of Occam's razor --
> entiae non sunt multiplicanda propter necessitatem -- or that you
> somehow believe it should not apply to psychology.
>
> >All professions comprise phalanxes of variable human beings with their
own
> >agendas: idealists, conformists, anarchists and self-seekers,
manipulators,
> >opportunists, game-players, saints, idiots, dreamers and mental giants.
>
> Into which category (or categories) would you place Burt?
>
> >Psychology has debated its own diversity for over a hundred years and is
> >possibly more balanced than many other arts/sciences/philosophies as if
> >freely admits to elements of all three.
>
> Reading "as if" as a possible Freudian slip and passing on from that, it
> is patently and inherently impossible for a true science to contain
> elements from art or philosophy. In art or philosophy, it is possible
> for observations to contradict one's beliefs and yet for those beliefs
> somehow to be considered valid; in science, it isn't. Indeed, one might
> reasonably argue that it is the duty of an artist to depict the world as
> s/he sees it or how s/he would like it to be; it is the duty of a
> scientist to describe (and, where possible, to explain) the world as it
> actually is.
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D4971
>