This a great forum for researching human nature.

[fenixdigger]

In most aspects the word "science" is used to describe the study and fine details of something. Flower pollination, essay composition, (Not a Spanish dude) candle making, etc., even remote locating. Look how much was spent on TRV and no science procedure has ever been able to nail it down, just the results WAY outside the law of large numbers. But it was still the "science" of TRV.

 

[Saturna]

The underlying aspect of human nature which produces that behavior is the desire to be in control of things you're not actually in control of. So rather than allowing the Universe declare what the result was, the human ego takes over the job. A failed dowse is thus magically transformed into a good dowse even though the result was worthless.

--Toto

Another very good post.

 

[EE THr]

woof!---

I agree with your comment about automotive engineering.


Actually, there are several definitions of psychology. The ones you use in that would be #3 and #4 in the linked page.

Although definitions #1 and #2 refer to the subject of psychology as being a science, it is my position that it is not, for the reasons that I have already listed, and given example of, several times.

So there are three differences there: The meaning you used, the formal definition of the subject, and the actual, overall, behavior of those who are teaching and practicing the subject itself.


Yes, dowsing, and anything else, can be approached scientifically. Except that contemporary science has it's limitations. These limitations are only self imposed, they don't really exist in the formal definition of science. These limitations are reinforced by the precepts of contemporary psychology. Furthermore, the source of these precepts are political.

If you scroll down the page of the link above, to Word Origin & History, you'll see that the original meaning of the word "psychology" was "study of the soul." They were obviously studying people, not some mysterious little spiritual gizmo, that people somehow owned. The point being, that you are a soul, rather than an animated physical object. Then, as shown in the same section, they later tried to change the meaning to "study of the mind." And still later, they tried placing you and your mind, in the brain. And that what is taught in our "education" system now.

Further, since a soul is not an empirical item, it is impossible for one to die. "Doing away" with the knowledge of the soul, allows them to use the threat of death, to enforce control over people. Actually, souls don't really need to be controlled, because they (people) are basically good, and would prefer not to waste their time being violent, or behaving in a criminal manner.

So, not only is contemporary psychology been perverted from what most people suppose it to be, but there is an even darker side at it's roots. See Operation Paperclip, and Project MKULTRA. You will notice that the topic of the second link is ominously missing from the first link, yet the first link is referenced by the second. Also see Mind Control.

While the intent of the psychological portion of Paperclip, and it's resultant covert expansion is a major thrust of formal psychology today, what the public sees is stuff like getting a small electrical zap, when you reach for a cigarette, or go to bite your fingernails. All the seemingly nicey-nicey stuff. But the whole thing is based on Behavior Modification, to various degrees, from beginning to end.

As for psychoanalysis, there actually are studies, conducted by psychologists/iatrists, that show the percentage of positive results. In the '50s or '60s, of the people who were asked if their condition improved after "laying on the couch," 22% said yes. But of those asked the same question, only referring to after having a "heart-to-heart" talk with a close relative or friend, also reported 22%! The same! Later, in '75, in a psychology class, they said it was 50% for each of those situations! Again exactly the same for each! So the best that psychoanalysis has ever claimed is the same percentage as a coin toss! And no better than a good talk with somebody else.

Psychology claims to be "helping people." But lately all they have been doing is drugging them up! And now, even our kids! And they are allowing school nurses and even teachers to diagnose, and then perscribe the drugs. I won't even mention Electroshock "Therapy."

So, from my point of view, the very best that psychology currently has to offer is pretty much nil, and certainly nothing special.

But the negative side of it, with what was mentioned above, plus organized Psy-Ops, torture, and the overall willingness to practice covertly, drug the public, and engage in political activities affecting U.S. citizens in all walks of life, and all over the country, far outweighs any minuscule good they might accidentally do.

There is much more. I could go on. But I wanted to keep it brief.

 

[aarthrj3811]

And the excuses continue

 

[EE THr]

Artie---

We all know that you have a language barrier.

Now it appears that you also have a mental block against actually relating your comments to a previous post in some kind of a rational manner.

Maybe you need a nap or something.








Big Four Proofs of LRLs Fraud

 

[woof!]

woof!---

I agree with your comment about automotive engineering.


Actually, there are several definitions of psychology. The ones you use in that would be #3 and #4 in the linked page.

Although definitions #1 and #2 refer to the subject of psychology as being a science, it is my position that it is not, for the reasons that I have already listed, and given example of, several times.

So there are three differences there: The meaning you used, the formal definition of the subject, and the actual, overall, behavior of those who are teaching and practicing the subject itself.

Definition #2 is the science of human and animal behavior. If nothing were known or could be known about human and animal behavior, then it wouldn't be in the realm of science. But this is a field in which we all (I hope!) know stuff and regard ourselves as capable of knowing more. This forum is among other things a laboratory for researching human behavior. This is what makes it a science.

Now you could say that there are people in the field who are full of schitt. That doesn't make psychology a non-science any more that Chuckie's patent makes magnetic physics a non-science. There are people who use psychology for evil purposes just as there are who use atomic science for evil purposes: what people do with it doesn't stop it from being science, what makes it such a problem is that those things actually are sciences.

Definition #1 is the science of mind and mental states. Common sense should tell you that what the author of the definition had in mind (no pun intended) was what goes on between the ears. This is a diverse field which includes (by definition) physiological psychology. If a person were of the opinion that nobody knows anything about mind and never will, or that nothing goes on between the ears that leaves a trail of evidence, then I suppose such a person would naturally hold to the opinion that definition #1 is not in the realm of science after all. Of course those who actually do have some knowledge in that field would be unimpressed other than to wonder "what is that guy thinking?" and might be inclined to formulate hypotheses, preferably of the testable kind.

I already did that with my statement earlier about the hypothetical Freudian dogmatist professor. Your response didn't validate my hypothesis that you went ballistic over the word "psychology" because of a fight you had a couple days ago with your college professor, so although that hypothesis wasn't positively disproven the outcome wasn't favorable and I'm now casting about for some other hypothesis. It's apparent that you feel strongly about some of the psychological research that the US government got involved in after WWII so that the USA could pick up where the Nazis left off, but for most people this would not lead to coming unglued at the very word "psychology", and even denial that psychology is a science. Maybe the word "Nazi" would trigger a tirade, that's an emotionally loaded word for a lot of people.

* * * * *

So, back to dowsing. Something decides where to point the rods, and I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't happen in a body without a brain. And I'm pretty sure that a dead brain won't suffice, the thing has to be functioning. And that leads straight to psychology.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Toto---

1. Anytime anybody, be it psychology, or any other group, or person, insists that something is unquestionably true, when it is not based on scientifically proven facts, is a non-science.
Do you agree with this statement or disagree with it?

2. Since "science," itself, has limited itself to only the empirical, it has placed that ceiling on it's knowledge.
Do you agree with this statement or disagree with it?

3. And, since dowsing is a psychic ability, "science," as it currently exists, will not be able to (scientifically) explain it.
Do you agree with this statement, or disagree with it?

Definition #1 is the science of mind and mental states. Common sense should tell you that what the author of the definition had in mind (no pun intended) was what goes on between the ears.

Why would any rational person try to claim to know what he was thinking? (Or are you saying now that you are psychic?) It's irrelevant, anyway!



I never said that "nobody knows anything about the mind." I'm just saying that psychology doesn't. Oh, they have observed many kinds of mental illnesses, and tried to categorize them. But they are just observing symptoms, and inventing names for them, and listing them all. And then the say, that since they have done that, they now "know all about the mind." Nuts!

By the way, I don't appreciate your statement that I am "denying" psychology. It makes it sound like I suffer from the old psychology saw, "denial." (Wow---what an amazing scientific discovery that behavior was. Pure genius. Just makes me misty. Oops, that's right, it's been known by everybody for thousands of years, already. Oh well.)

That apparently shows your lack of comprehension. Or maybe it's just that you are unable to face-up to what I have shown, because there is no legitimate rebuttal. I have previously stated my point clearly, several times, in several ways. Here, I'll do it again, so read carefully, and slowly if necessary: Most of the data which the so-called science of psychology is based upon, is actually non-factual opinion, conjecture, and animal behavior. (Animal behavior is fine for animal psychology, but not for basing conclusions about the human Psyche upon.)

I'm now casting about for some other hypothesis.

I can't believe you actually said that! Hello? Is anyone home? This is the classic "Forest and the Trees" scenario! Open your eyes and read! You don't need to "cast about." I've cheated, and made it easy for you---I've told you! I'm really starting to lose hope for you, now.



At any rate, despite the fact that you continuously try to put words in my mouth (Textbook Straw Man argument), and drift off into speeches about who knows what, and "use psychology" (definition #4) on me, I'll just reiterate my point, which you should have gotten by now.

Psychology won't be any more able to explain dowsing, than science in general (physics, or whatever) will, for my aforementioned reasons. Incidentally, you have never denied any of my main reasons, and certainly never disproven them.

For instance, here is another question, that I bet you will just ignore: Where are the proven facts behind your statements about the brain being some kind of computer? You already ignored (what does psychology say about that? Tisk, tisk.) my question about the research papers and a schematic of the eyes and optical nerves, with the "compression system" which you claimed to exist, but actually doesn't. That's in addition to the dozens of my other questions you couldn't answer. Too bad. If you are trying to be convincing, by appearing to be lofty and profound---News Flash: It's not working for you.

 

[woof!]

EE, responding to your "3 questions":

1. Since it was your statement, you're the one who decides what's facts and what's unquestionable and what it is that people represent. Therefore whether or not I would agree would depend on the specific circumstance to which you were applying it.

2. You insist on limiting yourself to the empirical, so as applied to you I would agree with that statement. I do science, which goes beyond the empirical, it involves insight. So as applied to me, it would be a false statement.

3. Disagree with the premise, therefore can neither agree nor disagree with the statement as a whole. There is no reason to attribute all dowsing to psychic phenomena. The debate is usually over whether any of it should be so attributed.

--Toto

 

[Carl-NC]

3. And, since dowsing is a psychic ability...

Are you sure about this?

EE, there is no doubt you have an intense dislike of psychology! Reminds me of some LRH folks I once knew. But to say you don't like what's come out of psychology for the last 50 years (or maybe 150 years) is a far cry from "psychology ain't science."

Pretty much every scientist, whether a psychologist of not, will at least agree that psychology is a real part of the sciences, and (done right) can follow scientific protocol. Observe behavior, form a falsifiable hypothesis, test it, make predictions. Link the behavioral part to the biology and chemistry parts, and you can figure out a whole lotta what's going on inside the gray matter.

I think at least part of your distaste of psychology as a science is in comparing it with physical sciences, like geology. Psychology is a social science, like linguistics (languages are a science? Sure!), and is a lot tougher to get your arms around because it's not easy to pick up in your hands and look at. Personally, my interests lie in evolutionary psychology (what happened in human evolution that makes us afraid of the dark?) and behavioral psychology (what makes a fellow assume an LRL will locate gold when the advertising doesn't say so?). I have to be content with simple observational methods, but I can still observe behavior, form a falsifiable hypothesis, test it, make predictions. Didja follow my recent discussion with Arch? Do you think I was able to predict the outcome of that exchange? Even at my rudimentary level of "research," it works!

Psychology won't be any more able to explain dowsing, than science in general (physics, or whatever) will, for my aforementioned reasons.

Actually, psychology does an outstanding job at explaining dowsing.

 

[EE THr]

Judy---

I need to add that I don't intend to insist that this is true, or demand that anyone "believe" it. I'm just stating my answer to your question. What you think about it is up to you.

I'm not sure if this is what you are referring to, because you have a tendency to post "orphan" statements and posts. That is, you don't explain exactly what they refer to. (By the way, you never answered the question, about the same problem, in my last post to you. (Are you having a big problem with this shortcoming?)

P.S. Your question looks like it came right off of a psych test. That is has no real purpose in the discussion, corroborates that. Are you another wannabe shrink?

 

[EE THr]

Toto---

My question #1, above, is straight forward. Your avoidance of it is obvious, in that your excuse is nonesense gibberish.

I thought you might have a problem with #2, but I didn't think you would do as poorly as you did. I obviously wasn't talking about myself, I was talking about science. You just used more of your Straw Man fallacy BS, which I have pointed out to you before. So obvious. Shame on you!

And I wasn't talking about what people do, and you know it. I was talking about the subject and discipline of Science. Science has defined itself as pertaining only to the empirical.

From the link I provided, above: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."

Your response to #3 is logically acceptable.

For instance, here is another question, that I bet you will just ignore....

Yup! Typical of your style. Avoidance. (Again!)

Maybe you should make an appointment with Judy about that!

 

[woof!]

EE, if you assume that the rest of the world (or even me) exists for the purpose of answering all the assertions and complaints you post, in the form you demand it to be answered, well, you assume wrong. For a hundred bucks an hour I'd give it a try, though. Meanwhile Google is at your disposal but you're the one who has to do the work, others aren't going to do it for you.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Carl---

First, let me point out that you never answered my question to you, in post #63.



Yes, I'm sure that dowsing is a psychic ability. But I have no intention of insisting that you, or anyone else, should have the same viewpoint.

My like or dislike of something has no influence on facts. Unfortunately, some people simply avoid facts. But that actually doesn't bother me. Like I said, I don't demand that others have my viewpoint.

Just because lots of people agree that something is a science, doesn't make it a science. But rather, that's called politics. (We've seen a lot of politically influenced science, right out in public, lately.)

Link the behavioral part to the biology and chemistry parts, and you can figure out a whole lotta what's going on inside the gray matter.

This particular association of the mind to the brain, is totally unsubstantiated by Scientific Method. So you poke a brain or give it a trickle of current somewhere, and a frog's or a guy's arm flinches. Or you destroy a small portion of the brain, and the guy has trouble talking right. That is no indication that the brain is the origin of the decision to move that arm or mouth. No drama here, just a point of scientific method. To assume that the brain thinks is pure conjecture, and is totally un-scientific. That's not hatred or dislike, it's just hard fact.

...and is a lot tougher to get your arms around because it's not easy to pick up in your hands and look at.

That doesn't matter. The Scientific Method can and must still be applied. People can't just say, "Well, it's all very mysterious, and nobody really knows about it, so let's just make some leaps of logic, and assume that profound conjecture will suffice, instead of that nasty ol' Scientific Methodology, 'cause that isn't working to prove that it is the way that we think it is. That's BS in anybody's book.



If you really want to get down with it, then tell me one, single, meaningful, discovery that Psychology has made which helps to cure mental illness.

And puleeeeeeeeez don't say "drugs." I hope you realize that drugs only cover up symptoms, and thus usually require people to take them for the rest of their lives. That's not curing anything, whether it's applied to any illness, either physical or mental.

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

The most important questions that I asked, I already know the answers to. And you should already know them, too, so there is no need to look anything up.

If you're talking about the proofs I asked for, don't worry---they don't exist! You're just blowing smoke out your ears, and you know it. Your standardized reply about Googling stuff is just another avoidance tactic.

Have you made that appointment with Judy yet?

 

[woof!]

EE, here's an interesting challenge, if you have as much time to jump through hoops as you insist that other people have to jump through yours.

Post a statement of something you regard as scientific unassailable fact in any field you choose, and then you prove it to us.

How much easier could it get? One fact, and you get to choose it.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

Judy, could you please let some of that popcorn fall on the floor where I can get at it?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

There are people who use psychology for evil purposes just as there are who use atomic science for evil purposes....

You make it sound like, "Oh, there may be just a few bad seeds in psychology, but nothing to worry about."

Well, it goes a lot deeper than that. The following is an excerpt from the MKULTRA link I provided.

(It seems that I am the only one here providing factual evidence to back up what I'm saying. And you're saying that I'm the one who's to lazy to look stuff up? I think you need to wake up to what's going on. You haven't provided one single reference, much less an actual link!)

On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said:

The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an "extensive testing and experimentation" program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens "at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign." Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to "unwitting subjects in social situations." At least one death, that of Dr. Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers.

So it's in the universities (that's your ed-u-ka-shun system, right there) and institutions (that's your practicing sy-ky-a-trusts, there). And that's just that one sub-program of just this one project. Gosh, makes you wonder why the universities let those guys have that stuff done there, don't it?

Can you spell p-o-l-i-t-i-c-s? Yes, I know you can!

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

Look, if you want to "believe" in psychology/iatry, that's your business. I'm certainly not going to try to change your mind.

But when you try to fancy-dance around, and call it Standard Science Based, I respectfully call BS on that.

I showed some facts and links to back up my statements.

You got nuthin'.

All you've brought to the table is hot air.

That's not a discussion. Which is exactly what I said in the first place.

So, who's predicting whose behavior now, oh wise one?

 

[EE THr]

woofie---

EE, here's an interesting challenge, if you have as much time to jump through hoops as you insist that other people have to jump through yours.

Post a statement of something you regard as scientific unassailable fact in any field you choose, and then you prove it to us.

How much easier could it get? One fact, and you get to choose it.

--Toto

Standard diversion tactics. You're getting desperate.

Go have some pablum and take a nap.

When you wake up, find somebody to stick a fork in you---because YOU'RE DONE!

 

[woof!]

EE, if all you know about psychology is the Nazi-CIA kind, I am grateful that you prefer not to practice it.

--Toto