[WikiEN-l] Rorschach wars continue

[Ray Saintonge]

Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> So what if there have been tens of thousands of papers on the 
>> Rorschachs!  The geocentric universe was impervious to criticism for 
>> much longer.
>> the incomes of those psychologists who are in denial about their game of 
>> follow-the-leader.  NPOV is contrary to such occult practices.
>>     
> Oh...  and does this mean that if you were to be convinced that showing the
> blots does cause harm, you would then support their removal?  Or is your
> position more absolutist, and you don't really care about whether they
> cause harm or not?
>   

The harm that they inflict on the self-esteem of psychologists is hardly 
enough harm to justify such action.  Showing that something can cause 
harm, is quite different than showing that it does.  Showing of anything 
is not a proof except to the person doing the showing; it fails to give 
equal weight to the people who are showing the exact opposite.  Perhaps 
adding a spoiler warning ;-) : "Do not read the following as it risks 
providing you with insights into yourself."

>> If the tests are truly scientific they will be just as 
>> scientific when exposed to open criticism.
>>     
> You're equivocating on the meaning of "scientific" here--if it means "be more
> able to properly use them on other people", yes.  If it means "be more able
> to properly use them on himself", no.
>
>   
Whether tests are scientific has nothing to do with whom they are being 
used on.  If I hypothesize that anyone who sees a picture of a duck in 
one or more of the blots is a quack that hypothesis still needs to be 
tested.  If it turns out that some of them are only Disney fanatics I 
would need to revise my hypothesis.  I don't know enough about the 
massive literature on the subject to determine whether it is properly 
scientific.

Ec