| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Critter" |
| Date: |
26 Oct 2003 10:33:46 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
One last thing about the hoax known as psychology.
Take a look at the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. He pleaded innocent by reason of
insanity. Many psychologists and psychiatrists took the stand to testify.
Their analysis was split. Many said that he was clearly insane, and many
others said that he was clearly sane.
If they cant make up their damn minds even in a case such as this, then what
makes you think that they should be awarded any measure of credibility
whatsoever ?
Given these facts, I am shocked that they are allowed to prescribe
medications, or render any kind of opinion as to the mental state of anyone
at any time. These things are unknowns, and they simply cannot be known. The
state needs to admit this fallacy and the horrific hoax which has resulted
in meaningless lobotomies, electrocutions, executions w/out due process, and
indeterminate incarcerations for people who were simply abducted by the
state because 3 people signed off on a statement that someone was insane.
Lets quit lying to ourselves. It's 2003 already people - seriously.
.
|
|
| User: "D E M I G O D" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 01:58:28 PM |
|
|
"Critter" <Barking@The.Moon> wrote in message
news:KHSmb.34586$Fm2.14057@attbi_s04...
One last thing about the hoax known as psychology.
Take a look at the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. He pleaded
innocent by reason of insanity. Many psychologists
and psychiatrists took the stand to testify.
Their analysis was split. Many said that he was clearly
insane, and many others said that he was clearly sane.
I'm quite sure that those psychologists and psychiatrists on both sides
of a split were paid their exorbitant fees (in the areas of $50k each)
for those "opinions", regardless of their outcome's "effect" on (vague)
decision in court.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Critter" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 02:17:02 PM |
|
|
One last thing about the hoax known as psychology.
Take a look at the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. He pleaded
innocent by reason of insanity. Many psychologists
and psychiatrists took the stand to testify.
Their analysis was split. Many said that he was clearly
insane, and many others said that he was clearly sane.
I'm quite sure that those psychologists and psychiatrists on both sides
of a split were paid their exorbitant fees (in the areas of $50k each)
for those "opinions", regardless of their outcome's "effect" on (vague)
decision in court.
Undoubtedly. And the courts & the people could have gotten the same answer
for $9.95 by consulting a "Magic 8-Ball".
The best way to describe the profession is "Professional Opinion Giver". And
maybe professional opinions are needed from time to time, but I dont see any
point in handing out degrees for the practice, or considering these opinions
any more or less relevant than a toss of the dice, or that of a witch
doctor.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 09:43:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:33:46 -0600, Critter wrote
(in message <KHSmb.34586$Fm2.14057@attbi_s04>):
One last thing about the hoax known as psychology.
Take a look at the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. He pleaded innocent by reason of
insanity. Many psychologists and psychiatrists took the stand to testify.
Their analysis was split. Many said that he was clearly insane, and many
others said that he was clearly sane.
If they cant make up their damn minds even in a case such as this, then what
makes you think that they should be awarded any measure of credibility
whatsoever ?
We use an Aristotelian system of logic which - pretty much - posits "two
sides to the issue".
Your statement "I f they cant make up their damn minds even in a case such as
this" could just as easily be used in the day-to-day political process,
watching tv, buying a shaving lather, deciding whether to cross the street or
whether to eat corn flakes or raisan bran.
In other words, it's pretty much of a "semantically null" statement.
Given these facts, I am shocked that they are allowed to prescribe
medications,
Psychologists generally aren't and psychiatrists are M.D.s.
or render any kind of opinion as to the mental state of anyone
at any time. These things are unknowns, and they simply cannot be known. The
state needs to admit this fallacy and the horrific hoax which has resulted
in meaningless lobotomies, electrocutions, executions w/out due process, and
indeterminate incarcerations for people who were simply abducted by the
state because 3 people signed off on a statement that someone was insane.
Lets quit lying to ourselves. It's 2003 already people - seriously.
But - in agreement with quite a few of your sytatements - "Who shall guard
the guardians?"
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton,
they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Critter" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 01:00:22 PM |
|
|
One last thing about the hoax known as psychology.
Take a look at the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer. He pleaded innocent by
reason of
insanity. Many psychologists and psychiatrists took the stand to
testify.
Their analysis was split. Many said that he was clearly insane, and many
others said that he was clearly sane.
If they cant make up their damn minds even in a case such as this, then
what
makes you think that they should be awarded any measure of credibility
whatsoever ?
We use an Aristotelian system of logic which - pretty much - posits "two
sides to the issue".
In other words, sort of like tossing a fair coin. I'm glad they're not
testing people for cancer.
Your statement "I f they cant make up their damn minds even in a case such
as
this" could just as easily be used in the day-to-day political process,
watching tv, buying a shaving lather, deciding whether to cross the street
or
whether to eat corn flakes or raisan bran.
In other words, it's pretty much of a "semantically null" statement.
Not really, unless you are using "Aristotelian logic" again......
If there is an illness, then there MUST be some definitive answer, either it
exists or it does not, and that conclusion must be reproducible otherwise
you do not have science, and you do not have medicine.
I say that there is no illness until you can prove that it exists, and you
just cant do that. You can demonstrate that someone is behaving differently,
but even in the case of Dahmer, there is no way to demonstrate that this is
a mental illness or not, perhaps an evolutionary leap forwards or back, or
maybe just a ploy. And for that reason, the conclusions of psychology are
MOOT.
Given these facts, I am shocked that they are allowed to prescribe
medications,
Psychologists generally aren't and psychiatrists are M.D.s.
Dosent make much difference in practice, except formalities and signatures
on Rx's.
or render any kind of opinion as to the mental state of anyone
at any time. These things are unknowns, and they simply cannot be known.
The
state needs to admit this fallacy and the horrific hoax which has
resulted
in meaningless lobotomies, electrocutions, executions w/out due process,
and
indeterminate incarcerations for people who were simply abducted by the
state because 3 people signed off on a statement that someone was
insane.
Lets quit lying to ourselves. It's 2003 already people - seriously.
But - in agreement with quite a few of your sytatements - "Who shall guard
the guardians?"
Perhaps these fields are better classified as poly-sci, because their only
real use is in politics, which also seems to use a sort of Aristotelian
logic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Critter" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 02:01:02 PM |
|
|
The Key Science Concept - Reproducibility of Results
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/elemsci/g3fslb9.html
======================================================
Re: What's the most important concept in science?
Reproducibility,. Explanatory power, Falsifiability (none of which are found
in psychology BTW)
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/925157418.Sh.r.html
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 04:34:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:01:02 -0600, Critter wrote
(in message <2KVmb.25082$mZ5.105842@attbi_s54>):
The Key Science Concept - Reproducibility of Results
http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/elemsci/g3fslb9.html
======================================================
Re: What's the most important concept in science?
Funding.
--------------------------------------------------------
Choosing Microsoft sofware for your
computer is equivalent to choosing
Dr. Kervorkian as your family doctor.
- Gray Shockley
Reproducibility,. Explanatory power, Falsifiability (none of which are found
in psychology BTW)
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr99/925157418.Sh.r.html
======================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Some Real News: From the New York Times |
26 Oct 2003 05:06:14 PM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BBC1A8260001A74A11FDE1E0@news.giganews.com> Gray Shockley <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> writes:
<
<On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:01:02 -0600, Critter wrote
<(in message <2KVmb.25082$mZ5.105842@attbi_s54>):
<
<> The Key Science Concept - Reproducibility of Results
<>
<> http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/docs/elemsci/g3fslb9.html
<>
<> ======================================================
<>
<> Re: What's the most important concept in science?
<
<
<Funding.
What Would Gary Larson Do?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
NEW YORK, Sept. 10 (UPI) =?UTF-8?B?4oCUIEEgTmV3IFlvcmsgZm9zdGVyIA==?==?UTF-8?B?ZmFtaWx5IGlzIGZhY2luZyBhICQzMSBtaWxsaW9uIGxhd3N1aXQgb24gY2hhcmc=?==?UTF-8?B?ZXMgb2YgcGh5c2ljYWxseSwgcHN5Y2hvbG9naWNhbGx5IGFuZCBzZXh1YWxseSA=?==?UTF-8?B?YWJ1c2luZyBmb3VyIEJ
NEW YORK (AP) -- Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the city's childwelfare commissioner on Friday, a day after a damning report concluded 10children had died as a result of the agency's inept investigations.
Catholic Church Disaffiliates New York College Over Abortion Dispute
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Prosecutors are considering charges againstthe biological son of a woman accused in a lucrative adoption scam that stretchedfrom New York to South Florida, authorities said Tuesday.
Rare Religious Liberty Document Goes On Display In New York
Survey: Thousands of Homeless Kids in New York City
>> The New York Court, The Baghdad Court, The International Criminal Court in the Netherlands <<
Paul Krugman, New York Times Columnist
| New York God Proclamation
New York Thanksgiving Proclamation
Uganda: Free Secondary Education (New York Times)
Sarah Elizabeth York - June 3rd 1986
New York Thanksgiving Proc
New York Thanksgiving Proclamation
Fake names helped mom adopt 11 New York children: welfare agency:received $1.26 million in stipends to help care for the kids, Authoritiesin Florida, however, say she received up to $2 million in payments from NewYork City.
|
|
|
