Davy

Is Psychology a Science?

Recommended Posts

Ah. That’s entertainment. Bassakwards. Tautologous. Two more from Doctor Defender? Peter

Let's get clear first what "[us] guys" say rights ARE.  I shall speak for only one of us guys, myself. I'll give you my provisional definition -- I don't know if I'll be happy with this as my "final" definition.  The form of it and the first part of it I've taken from Rand, but the second part is a attempt to state explicitly what's implied in what she said: Rights are moral principles defining and sanctioning the conditions of freedom from aggression by others which the individual needs to have respected by others and, if necessary, legally enforced in order to live as a self-responsible moral agent. Now, I have little questions about precise details of wording. But one very important point to notice is that, in my proposed definition, as in Rand's, *the focus of reference is the individual whose freedom of action is at stake*.  It is NOT the self-interest of the potential aggressor.

The problem with your approach is that instead of thinking of rights from the standpoint of the individual who might need protection from being aggressed against, you're thinking of the issue from the standpoint of the person who might do the aggressing.  In other words, I'd call your approach bassakwards, wrong ways about.

Thus when you say, "You guys claim that rights are _always_ present regardless of the situation and in emergency situations it _might sometimes_ be okay to violate them," I'm not really sure what you're saying.  I don't know how you're defining "rights" here. If by "rights" all you mean is an obligation on you not to aggress, then obviously if you aren't obligated not to aggress, you aren't obligated not to aggress -- it's tautologous.

If, on the other hand, by "rights" you mean the other person's moral claim against your aggressing, then I would or wouldn't agree with the word "always" depending on how the status of a criminal is to be thought of.

I'm not sure myself on that one, whether it's better to think of a criminal as a person who's stripped of rights due to default on rights-respecting behavior, or instead as a person whose rights are rendered inoperative due to default on rights-respecting behavior. But in the kind of scenario the list has been talking about, where, e.g., a shipwreck survivor comes upon a deserted cabin with some food in it, yes, I'd say that the property owner's rights are intact throughout, even though, depending on how the starving person goes about things, it's not blameworthy for that person to violate the property owner's rights.

As to whether your description --"rights are conditions of freedom that we should allow others" -- is valid, the "allow" there is a very dangerous word, Luka.  Again, it implies that my moral claim to not being aggressed against by you doesn't really exist, that all that exists is your -- graciously or not, depending on your "self-interest" --  permitting me to live my life free from aggression on your part.

 

Instead, using my definition of rights, I'd say that rights are conditions of freedom you should *respect* in others, I would hope of your own desire, but if not from desire, then under threat of just reprisal. Maybe that makes clearer to you where we diverge.  Next time: standards, values, goals and such like. Ellen S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

That's not what Rand said.

--Brant

That was from Ellen and I couldn't find the heading but she signed it. Ellen has a prodigious memory. Where was the slip up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

 I'm letting this one hang.

--Brant 

Wise move Brant. You wouldn’t want to tick her off. But in the following is “non-qualness” a typo for “non-equal-ness? Peter

Notes.  From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Wolfgang Pauli Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 16:01:59 -0500. I have no desire to reopen the debate about whether or not the laws of physics as they currently stand leave any "wiggle room" for effective intention.  However, out of deep respect for Wolfgang Pauli, I feel that I should enter an historical note about him.

It's true, as George described in the post by George where I left off reading a couple days ago, that Pauli arrived at the hypothesis of the neutrino's existence (subsequently confirmed) on the basis of the non- qualness of the observed sum of the mass and energy prior to and after beta decay; he hypothesized that there was an as-yet-unidentified particle accounting for the results.  But this doesn't mean that Pauli himself believed that the laws of physics always hold.

Instead, *Pauli* was the originator of the idea of synchronicity. Then he and Jung developed the idea and dual-authored a book about it -- they each wrote an essay, and the two essays were published in the same volume (1951).  Pauli and Jung described synchronicity as "an acausal connecting principle."  Now, it's hard to capture the exact nuances of what they meant by "acausal."  Both of them thought of causation as pertaining to mechanism, as pertaining to the laws of motion.  So a one-word synonym for what they meant might be "non-mechanistic."  But that doesn't convey the full flavor.  I think that the best synonym is "meaning-full."  They thought that there was a principle of *psyche* operative in the universe whereby events might occur in such a way as to have *meaning* for the person experiencing the event.  This of course is quite a different idea from the idea that everything which happens is the result of mechanical forces.

A further detail:  Pauli was the person whose incredibly rich and symbolic dreams are analyzed by Jung in the chapter "Individual Dream Symbolism in Relation to Alchemy" in Jung's *Psychology and Alchemy*.  And a comical note:  There's the legendary, in physicist jokes, principle known as "The Pauli Effect," according to which any experiment being conducted in near-proximity to Pauli's physical location was sure to go wrong.  There were even experimenters who took to asking, when they couldn't get lab equipment to work, "Where's Pauli?" And then there's the tale of an experimenter who, upon having a terrible time conducting what should have been a simple lab demonstration, said, "But Pauli's in Vienna," only to be told that although Pauli was en route to Vienna, he'd stayed overnight in the town where the experimenter lived.

Other types of stories, too, are told of Pauli, non-entertaining ones.  He could be a holy terror in the cuttingness of his critiques of fellow physicists' work.  Many felt intimidated by him, and he doesn't sound as if he was at all an easy person to get along with.  But he was a very great physicist -- and at the same time a physicist who believed that the psyche has powers which in certain circumstances could produce phenomena at variance with the usual laws of physics.  In short, there are respects in which Pauli would be classified by some as having been "a mystic." Ellen S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Freud a scientist? I won’t give all the clues but you may guess them. From The NY Times Sunday Puzzle by Naomi Geller Lipsky, “Scientific Nomenclature.” Here is one clue: Scientist featured in an adventure film. Answer. Joule of the Nile. And the rest of the answers with different questions. Freud Green Tomatoes.  The Perils of Pauling. I am Curie-ous Yellow.  Fermi and My Gal.  Ohm on the Range.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dr Freud, Herr Doktor Freud

How we wish you had been differently employed

Instead of curing sclerosis, you fiddled with neurosos

Oh what a waste, Herr Doktor  Freud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Oh Dr Freud, Herr Doktor Freud

How we wish you had been differently employed

Instead of curing sclerosis, you fiddled with neurosos

Oh what a waste, Herr Doktor  Freud

Shucks. You got it. I have asked before if Freud followed scientifically pure methods and no one answered sufficiently. Now you must divulge your true I.Q. Are you from planet Earth?  And will you help me play the stock market?      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peter said:

Shucks. You got it. I have asked before if Freud followed scientifically pure methods and no one answered sufficiently. Now you must divulge your true I.Q. Are you from planet Earth?  And will you help me play the stock market?      

Yes    ..... No

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2019 at 8:17 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Yes    ..... No

 

Surface or Middle Earth? Here's a good idea for the Lord of the Rings movies. "Stock picks for Hobbits, Dwarves. and Elfin Big Tech Billionaires."      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...