[quote author=thompsonj@higgslaw.com link=board=51;threadid=25551;start=0#109478 date=1023296098] [quote]
[Hermit] "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. " -Einstein
[James] You curiously left off the other part of the quote...
"However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. " -Einstein
[Hermit] Times change. And even in his time, Einstein was not infallible. In some of his earlier works, he showed all the signs of "wanting to believe." His later writing indicated that he was at least partially - though not completely cured. Having lived for the very serious "pursuit of science" for most of my life, I am utterly without the alleged conviction - which is sufficient proof that Einstein was wrong on this score. In addition, I recall a statistic indicating that some 70% of recognized US scientists assert that they have no "belief" - so perhaps it is not just I.
[Hermit] Certainly, if you had bothered to peruse the previously supplied synopsis, you would have discovered that "faith" is not required or helpful in science (if you choose to disagree, please indicate at which step in the process "faith" is required), rather we work from the perspective of an "imperfect and fragmentary" knowledge, because the Universe is not just "unknown" but also "unknowable" and systems are either complete or correct but not both. We use the scientific method to resolve probable truths through attempting to disprove our theories, not to support them. And Einstein himself demonstrates why this is so. His most visible errors came when he rejected the implications of his own models (particularly the concept of spooky action at a distance) - because he wanted to believe in an orderly Universe imbued with a "fair" spirit. This is about as far from reality as it gets.
[Hermit] Had you visited the FAQ section you might also have noticed FAQ: Faith and truth in science (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=31;action=display;threadid=11535). You would undoubtedly improve your understanding of the practice of science if you read and understood it.
[James] Hermit, I have long admired your ability to pick apart an argument, although removing excerpts from context and arguing each independently while simultaneously making subtle, infantile insinuations, not only makes you sound petty but also deeply underminds any validity your arguement may actually hold.
[Hermit] Attempting to damn with faint praise? It won’t work. My arguments are always well formed, and my opinions, based on too many years of dealing with intelligent (and (usually) justifiably arrogant) people - and the occasional insufficiently educated fool with more misapprehensions than sense, are generally sound and almost invariably proven correct. I find that the idea, that an opinion can undermine an argument, is usually held by people in the latter category. Particularly those who attempt to suggest they have earned qualifications while being demonstrably incapable of writing coherent sentences at an undergraduate level (not to spelling and grammar).
[James] I know you must be more intelligient than the narrow - minded response you displayed implies though I concede that many people tend to become defensive and insultive when their perceived authority is threatened.
[Hermit] On the one hand, I guess that I cannot possibly be "intelligient" (sic) as I am never narrow-minded. On the other hand, my mind is not sufficiently open to attract tornadoes and thus remains sufficiently acute not to bother with the epithets of fools. And only a fool would not realize that an attempted insult is only effective when accepted - and that the source has to be taken into consideration when determining whether ot accept it or not.
[James] (or, maybe your lack of concision is due to haste :) )
[Hermit] Usually, that comes into it (I am certainly in exalted company in this) yet I still attempt to make the time to provide appropriate responses. The other side is that when I notice a post which is screwy enough to warrant a cautionary comment, and where it is not absolutely clear whether the author is a fool or simply ill-educated, I tend to write to the education level reflected by the post - and this means covering the definitions and nuances of my arguments sufficiently for anyone moderately intelligent to follow them. This takes space. Sadly, it begins to appear that I would have to become monosyllabic and write in six word sentences to get through to you, but others here seem to appreciate me responses.
[James] I proceed with my agrument maintaining respect for any individual who agrees or disagrees with me, acknowledging everyone has a right to their opinion and hoping that the basic intention of every dialogue of rational discourse is to proceed toward a discovery of truth, a concept I personally don't claim to embody but am committed to discovering regardless of the risks to my personal belief system.
[Hermit] An argument presents supported facts leading to a conclusion, "S" and "T" therefore "Q". You present opinion and call it an “agrument”. It really doesn’t wash.
[Hermit] Truth is an emergent property and relative. Shared truths are properly validated by means of the scientific method (attempted refutation) and consensus. When a mental defective offers an opinion which is ludicrous and which contravenes shared perceptions of reality, should they be respected or corrected? As for "the right to an opinion" would you support a cannibal's right to an opinion about eating people (given that a firmly held opinion tends to lead to action)? As for your openness to belief (accepting without sufficient evidence or despite contrary evidence), it is very apparent.
<snip Jake's sensible comment>
[James] I'm sure that anyone in this organization or anyone else that is exposed to my views is capable to decide for themselves whether or not medication is beneficial for them.
[Hermit] This is completely wrong. A faulty mind cannot diagnose itself - or why validation is important.
[James] Furthermore, I never suggested that an individual with severe psychosis should drop their meds.
[Hermit] You appeared to do so, particularly when you then proceed to reiterate your unsupported opinion that your diagnosis of “soul sickness” is superior to the DSM.
[James] In fact I believe there are great benefits in pharmacological intervention when it is supplemented with cognitive therapy.
[Hermit] When the problem is structural and can be addressed by drugs, then additional intervention is not only not required but may be harmful (American Psychological Association). In any case "cognitive therapy" seems to mean whatever its supporters want it to mean (similar in many ways to the approaches offered by e.g. Landmark Forum, Large Group Awareness Training programs and neurolinguistic programming. Brief, but helpful, descriptions of these may be found at http://skepdic.com), does not appear to be a recognized system and presumably remains distinguished as much by its failures than its successes or we would surely see more about it in peer reviewed journals. Pharmacological intervention simply works.
[James] My major qualm is with cosmetic psychopharmacology which is based on the popular delusion that it is actually possible to be somebody else, that the soul's sickness can be healed through a quick, superficial fix.
[Hermit] Your beliefs are showing, as is your inability to form a meaningful sentence.
[James] I suggest that the desire to become "somebody else" is not something to be encouraged and pandered to, but something we should recognize for what it is: a sickness of the soul, a refusal or inability to accept ourselves as we really are.
[Hermit] I could not find "a sickness of the soul" in the DSM IV. Kindly provide the appropriate reference.
[James] The entire modern biological approach to mental illnes, the "Medical Model,"
fosters this same delusory hope, equating sickness of the soul with a neurological glitch, and promising patients an easy chemical normalization without their ever having to confront the existential crisis that is at the center of their pain. As I stated before, there is no scientific basis to justify extravagant use of medication.
[Hermit] After this little diatribe, I again challenge you to provide "a scientific basis" for a soul and support for your assertion that the “Medical Model” is insufficient. Or are these indeed just your opinions? In which case, why are you attempting to propagate them without qualification as such?
<snip>
Hermit <still in haste>
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25551>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:14 MDT