Amen Brotha!
Science, like Genius, is a grossly over used, and abused, word. There are more than a few scientific facts/finding/studies, whole field even, out there which would not stand to the simplest scientific scrutiny or peer review. Musicology is one of them, most of the claims made by it couldn't possibly be verified and are largely unreproducible to any degree of accuracy.
But yeah, keep selling your snake oil (to the OT)
Science, like Genius, is a grossly over used, and abused, word. There are more than a few scientific facts/finding/studies, whole field even, out there which would not stand to the simplest scientific scrutiny or peer review. Musicology is one of them, most of the claims made by it couldn't possibly be verified and are largely unreproducible to any degree of accuracy.
But yeah, keep selling your snake oil (to the OT)
To: CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com
From: smw-mail@...
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:29:26 +0000
Subject: [CZ-VZ-Files] Re: OT My new electronic music project
From: smw-mail@...
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:29:26 +0000
Subject: [CZ-VZ-Files] Re: OT My new electronic music project
I started reading reviews for the book you recommend and found this:
"As a psychologist who is aware of some of the questionable research and clinical practices in psychology I read this book with interest. Many of the chapters were interesting and the criticisms valid. I was disappointed, however, that a book that claims to debunk pseudoscience seemed to have a major blindspot. For example Waschbusch and Hill's chapter examines treatments for ADHD without reference to the controversy that exists about the validity of ADHD as a neurobiological syndrome. There is debate about the unscientific manner in which groups of nonspecifc behaviours are named as syndromes, in the absence of any physical evidence. Discussing treatments for these "disorders" without mentioning this at all seems a glaring oversight in a book that devotes so much attention to issues of diagnosis and assessment and claims to expose pseudosicence. It hardly takes courage or insight to criticise the fringe elements, but what about blatant pseudoscientific practices carried out by mainstream psychologists? "
Having read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and having read scholarly articles and attended conference panels devoted to the rhetoric of science, I am very much aware that those who claim that science is on their side are not always right. They might have persuasive and other power, but just because they invoke science on their side and condemn psuedoscience from others, doesn't make them right--just powerful.
STeve
--- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Looks like pseudoscience to me. See this:
> Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
>; Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr
> Guilford Press, 2004
>
>
> - synergeezer
>
"As a psychologist who is aware of some of the questionable research and clinical practices in psychology I read this book with interest. Many of the chapters were interesting and the criticisms valid. I was disappointed, however, that a book that claims to debunk pseudoscience seemed to have a major blindspot. For example Waschbusch and Hill's chapter examines treatments for ADHD without reference to the controversy that exists about the validity of ADHD as a neurobiological syndrome. There is debate about the unscientific manner in which groups of nonspecifc behaviours are named as syndromes, in the absence of any physical evidence. Discussing treatments for these "disorders" without mentioning this at all seems a glaring oversight in a book that devotes so much attention to issues of diagnosis and assessment and claims to expose pseudosicence. It hardly takes courage or insight to criticise the fringe elements, but what about blatant pseudoscientific practices carried out by mainstream psychologists? "
Having read Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and having read scholarly articles and attended conference panels devoted to the rhetoric of science, I am very much aware that those who claim that science is on their side are not always right. They might have persuasive and other power, but just because they invoke science on their side and condemn psuedoscience from others, doesn't make them right--just powerful.
STeve
--- In CZ-VZ-Files@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
>
> Looks like pseudoscience to me. See this:
> Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology
>; Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Jeffrey M. Lohr
> Guilford Press, 2004
>
>
> - synergeezer
>