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