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