31st August 2005, 10:26 PM
Freud was to psychiatry what Aristotle was to physics...
By the way, I am not the one making the claim for alternate states of conciousness. I don't need to "prove" they don't exist, you need to provide evidence they do.
Remember, "proofs" are for math and logic, not science.
Here's a quote used in a more specific context but it should give you a good idea of exactly what science does.
And I might add that if it can never be shown correct, then what is the point in believing in it anyway? What good does it do? I can offer the idea that there are countless ghosts wandering around that, unlike the normal testable ideas of ghosts, are completely and utterly undetectable and can never interact with our world, but are there anyway. Still, what would the point be? If an explanation for human behavior has the same explaining power as anything Freud dreamed up but without extraneous mental states like the id and super ego, then why go with the more complicated one?
This is the very basis of skeptical thinking. Now, an extreme extension of this thinking is "the only thing I know is that I know nothing beyond this", but that is hardly a very useful one.
By the way, I am not the one making the claim for alternate states of conciousness. I don't need to "prove" they don't exist, you need to provide evidence they do.
Remember, "proofs" are for math and logic, not science.
Here's a quote used in a more specific context but it should give you a good idea of exactly what science does.
Quote:"Proofs" are written by mathematicians and logicians, not by astronomers nor by astrophysicists.
Science offers "proof" of nothing. Science offers data, gathered under specified conditions. Science seeks comprehensive yet parsimonious explanations of data named "theories," a jargon word which ignorant people often misconstrue as a synonym for "guesses."
No, it isn't "just semantics." It is the basis for the manner of reasoning, and the results to be expected from such manner of reasoning. A "proof" is not a product of science, so just who is expected to write a "scientific proof"?
Since writing "proofs" is outside the realm of science, a prize for "scientific proofs" ought to be very safe indeed. You should consider offering more "challenges" of the same format, but with a different topic, say for example "prove that the Earth's core is molten," or better yet, "prove that the world is round."
And I might add that if it can never be shown correct, then what is the point in believing in it anyway? What good does it do? I can offer the idea that there are countless ghosts wandering around that, unlike the normal testable ideas of ghosts, are completely and utterly undetectable and can never interact with our world, but are there anyway. Still, what would the point be? If an explanation for human behavior has the same explaining power as anything Freud dreamed up but without extraneous mental states like the id and super ego, then why go with the more complicated one?
This is the very basis of skeptical thinking. Now, an extreme extension of this thinking is "the only thing I know is that I know nothing beyond this", but that is hardly a very useful one.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)