Professors, PhDs, Lecturers and all Peer Reviewed Scholars!

[oldbadger]

My patience with your constant insults, condescension, and patronization is now officially used up.

Thank goodness for that.
You have a really good day, Indigo Child.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

For sure.

A problem? What problem?
Now....who exactly were the 'experts' in your perception within your above example?
And who (taking part) was not worth listening to?

Everybody who responds to a question is worth hearing if possible. The person who discards ideas because of their lifestyle or work may lose the correct answer to their problem.


What was the field of research?

well, let me restate: 'the problem' comes when someone starts trying to insist that only one expert can be right--and that all others must be wrong--and that everyone who wants to discuss the subject must pick one or another of the experts and defend that point of view.

Perhaps I was not clear, but that was the sole point of my post.

 

[oldbadger]

well, let me restate: 'the problem' comes when someone starts trying to insist that only one expert can be right--and that all others must be wrong--and that everyone who wants to discuss the subject must pick one or another of the experts and defend that point of view.

Perhaps I was not clear, but that was the sole point of my post.

You're right there......anybody who promotes one 'expert' opinion should be considered with great precaution.

Did you have a field of research in mind?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You're right there......anybody who promotes one 'expert' opinion should be considered with great precaution.

Did you have a field of research in mind?

My area was organizational behavior and public affairs...but no, I'm not really interested in discussing it further than to make my single point.

 

[oldbadger]

My area was organizational behavior and public affairs...but no, I'm not really interested in discussing it further than to make my single point.

OK...... I asked out of genuine interest, is all.

So many fields in education can be very inexact sciences and within those it's not easy to be able to identify intimate knowledge from the incorrect.

Psychology is one of these.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK...... I asked out of genuine interest, is all.

So many fields in education can be very inexact sciences and within those it's not easy to be able to identify intimate knowledge from the incorrect.

Psychology is one of these.

It's pretty much a given that psychoanalysis did not begin with science. Freud had an abundance of ideas based on his experiences with his patients. However, as happens so often, he generalized from too small a sampling. His interpretations were also contaminated by his personal biases. Virtually everything Freud thought to be true has now been abandoned. But one thing remains: Freud did discover the unconscious mind, and that knowledge is now so foundational to everything in psychology that he can't be seen as anything but a giant in the field.

The person we can credit with first introducing scientific method into psychology is Wilhelm Wundt (1879) who built a lab to study consciousness. In the century-plus since then, psychology has added more and more scientific method, and excised philosophy.

Is there any particular element of modern psychology that you believe to be unscientific?

 

[oldbadger]

It's pretty much a given that psychoanalysis did not begin with science. Freud had an abundance of ideas based on his experiences with his patients. However, as happens so often, he generalized from too small a sampling. His interpretations were also contaminated by his personal biases. Virtually everything Freud thought to be true has now been abandoned. But one thing remains: Freud did discover the unconscious mind, and that knowledge is now so foundational to everything in psychology that he can't be seen as anything but a giant in the field.

The person we can credit with first introducing scientific method into psychology is Wilhelm Wundt (1879) who built a lab to study consciousness. In the century-plus since then, psychology has added more and more scientific method, and excised philosophy.

Most interesting info about Wilhelm Windy. Thank you.

Is there any particular element of modern psychology that you believe to be unscientific?

Yes. Modern psychiatry seems to hide many quacks within it's professional ranks.
My late wife suffered from both epilepsy grand-mall (which it was called back then) and hysterical seizures. I just tried to explain further but I could not continue, enough to say that specialist doctors in a special research clinic proved themselves to be completely inept. A year or two after our experiences with this clinic (which was annexed to a main London teaching hospital) this place was closed down and disappeared.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Most interesting info about Wilhelm Windy. Thank you.

Yes. Modern psychiatry seems to hide many quacks within it's professional ranks.
My late wife suffered from both epilepsy grand-mall (which it was called back then) and hysterical seizures. I just tried to explain further but I could not continue, enough to say that specialist doctors in a special research clinic proved themselves to be completely inept. A year or two after our experiences with this clinic (which was annexed to a main London teaching hospital) this place was closed down and disappeared.

The Medical field is just as flawed as any other industry because it is made up of human beings. I don't think anyone is deliberately hiding them, but such quacks certainly exist.

I'm so very sorry about your wife. There is nothing worse than a doctor who won't listen--I've encountered many. In your wife's case, it may have been genuine malpractice that they a psychiatric diagnosis to someone without an MRI given that seizures are usually due to epilepsy. I may be possible for you to sue on her behalf, but since I'm not an attorney, I can't really say for sure.

 

[RabbiO]

You didn't offer the verse, so here it is:-
Isaiah: {7:14} Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There are a number of interpretations of Isaiah 7:14, including

• A sign for King Ahaz
  Some say that Isaiah 7:14 is a sign that God gave to King Ahaz to produce faith. The sign was supernatural and was meant to be astonishing enough to make King Ahaz believe. However, King Ahaz rejected the sign and refused to put God to the test.
  
  
• A foreshadowing of Mary and Jesus
  Others say that the woman and child in Isaiah's day foreshadowed Mary and Jesus. The child was called Immanuel, which means "God with us", and foreshadowed Jesus, who was literally God with us.
  
  
• A judgment on human nature
  Some say that the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 is a judgment on human nature as corrupt in Adam. The child born of the virgin would mean the birth of a new Adam, saving Israel and offering a fresh start to humanity.
  
  
• A timeframe centered around the child's age
  Rikk Watts says that the sign in Isaiah 7:14-17 points to a timeframe that centers around the age of the child.
  

I’m surprised that you didn’t include in addition to comments about interpretation a question as to whether the translation you cited for 7:14 is, in fact, an accurate translation.

 

[Nakosis]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.
I remember one occasion many years ago when two debaters were in deep contention and one demanded to know from the other 'have you read Fred?!!' ...A name was fired at the other.
Well, the other hadn't read Fred, but he'd read about Fred, and the reply came racing back 'So you haven't read Fred!'
The opposing debater tried again, 'But I've read a report about his findings.'
And so the death blow ensued, 'I knew you couldn't have read Fred! Any self respecting (whatever) has read Fred, a peer reviewed Doctor of (whatever) and Professor of (whatevering) at (wherever)!!'
Clubbed to death by ( or with, actually) a peer reviewed scholar. But are all these docs, profs, super scholars and other elites getting stuff right?

A central stone at wonderful Stone Henge in England is the centre of attention amongst some scholars at this time. The cry has gone out that 'Wow! It came from Scotland!'
OK, it might have done, or not, but the month before this amazing discovery a whole bunch of scholars had thought it was dragged or floated from somewhere else. And so knowledge seems to move in fashion's of 'how it all is now' and things could change ...anytime.

This very week on RF a regular member quoted a scholar's findings in order to show or prove one point, but in the next sentence he explained that he didn't agree with much else that this scholar had written. That's what I find...I've read books by super-scholars and found that most are confronted by other super-scholars and , well, my own opinions.

So why don't we debate from our own discoveries and opinions rather than by quoting smidgens from the academic lords?

Rant over.....but I enjoyed that.

I've often regretted that these scholars aren't about, to argue for themselves. Unfortunately we are usually left with someone else to argue on their behalf.

 

[oldbadger]

The Medical field is just as flawed as any other industry because it is made up of human beings. I don't think anyone is deliberately hiding them, but such quacks certainly exist.

I'm so very sorry about your wife. There is nothing worse than a doctor who won't listen--I've encountered many. In your wife's case, it may have been genuine malpractice that they a psychiatric diagnosis to someone without an MRI given that seizures are usually due to epilepsy. I may be possible for you to sue on her behalf, but since I'm not an attorney, I can't really say for sure.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.
That all happened over 40 years ago.
It isn't just in psychiatric services that that guidance goes wrong. The prescription of sodium valproate for the control of epilepsy is still needed but the science of 40 years ago failed to discover that this chemical can horribly injure embryos during pregnancy. Several thousand victims in France and more in the UK still seek some justice for that.

Our knowledge at any one time in development is surely inexact, which is why I think like I do.

 

[oldbadger]

I’m surprised that you didn’t include in addition to comments about interpretation a question as to whether the translation you cited for 7:14 is, in fact, an accurate translation.

I didn't write 90% of that, Rabbio. Just the first paragraph.

 

[oldbadger]

I've often regretted that these scholars aren't about, to argue for themselves. Unfortunately we are usually left with someone else to argue on their behalf.

That is sadly the case.
Even at this time and in one language there can be debates about what a writer meant, and that's even when without language translation is necessary.

In the UK we've executed people (Blakelock) because their four word sentence had two meanings, one honest the other criminal.... ('Let him have it!')

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thank you for your kind thoughts.
That all happened over 40 years ago.
It isn't just in psychiatric services that that guidance goes wrong. The prescription of sodium valproate for the control of epilepsy is still needed but the science of 40 years ago failed to discover that this chemical can horribly injure embryos during pregnancy. Several thousand victims in France and more in the UK still seek some justice for that.

Our knowledge at any one time in development is surely inexact, which is why I think like I do.

We can't really blame people for making honest mistakes.

Not giving a brain scan when someone has seizures 40 years ago is not an honest mistake. In 1985, they had CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs. Psychiatric patients that had seizures were given brain scans. They don't really reveal epilepsy, but they identify things like brain tumors and other things that can induce seizures.

Is it an EEG that diagnoses epilepsy?

I'm sorry, but I do tend to get outraged by cases such as your wife's. Again, I'm so very sorry.

 

[oldbadger]

We can't really blame people for making honest mistakes.

Not giving a brain scan when someone has seizures 40 years ago is not an honest mistake. In 1985, they had CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs. Psychiatric patients that had seizures were given brain scans. They don't really reveal epilepsy, but they identify things like brain tumors and other things that can induce seizures.

Of course...you are right.
But because investigation and research can fail I don't think that we can use the word 'expert' like we do. At any one moment in development we are only at the cutting edge of discovery. One minute more and our opinion might reverse?

Is it an EEG that diagnoses epilepsy?

I'm sorry, but I do tend to get outraged by cases such as your wife's. Again, I'm so very sorry.

I don't know if or how EEGs can diagnose epilepsy.
Infants can experience a 'tonic-clonic' full seizure once and then never again.
I get the impression that as with most sciences, medical diagnosis is a minefield of complexity.

And then there are the miraculous events. My living wife collapsed in 2014 with a most dreadfully deadly and painful condition and a very good health centre person transferred me to an emergency person who sent out a brilliant paramedic who decided not to go to an A&E centre but to a 'clinical decisions unit' at a smaller hospital ....where a very young doctor (who had just returned from a training course about a very rare tumour) inspected my wife and said 'I know what that is!' (Phaeo Chromo Cytoma).

Scio.... Luv it!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

At any one moment in development we are only at the cutting edge of discovery. One minute more and our opinion might reverse?

But that is the glory of science! It is faithful to the known evidence rather than any conclusion. That trait is what makes it so wonderful.

 

[oldbadger]

But that is the glory of science! It is faithful to the known evidence rather than any conclusion. That trait is what makes it so wonderful.

True.... I do love to hear about discovery, and because science cannot accept many conclusions as everlasting it is very modest with most of its claims.