Recommended Posts
Nigel 0
Everon 0
QuoteI would expect a gifted scientific thinker (which I am definitely not), would respond to my hypothetical in the following way: "Although I have not personally seen scientific proof of a true private revelation from God, I have also not seen scientific proof of the absence of a true private revelation from God; therefore I could not claim that either theory is correct."
I'm not a gifted scientist either, but this argument fails in so many ways it's laughable - on scientific and logical grounds.
Nigel 0
Quote
Freud and Jung were certainly not scientific.
Not sure I agree with that. Science is observation and correlation. Observations need to be reproducible independent of the observer to be valid in science. I think they managed to do that to a reasonable extent. Maybe their correlations weren't too good, but they're observations weren't too bad.
Squeak 17
QuoteMmmm...not too sure about pyschiatry....Freud and Jung were certainly not scientific.
They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
maadmax 0
Quote
Maybe according to your "Pop Religion" books. The true Spiritual seekers tries to learn and apply God's Wisdom to their daily life. God's Wisdom is universally true. Universal Truth produces insightful understanding of the intangible reality that surrounds us. The reality that science totally ignores. Spiritual Wisdom is tested by a trial and error method. What works is kept, what doesn't is rejected or held out for more study. The Bible is a textbook of Spiritual Truth. When correctly understood, produces profound results in the life of the believer. A spiritually powerful, successful life is evidence of Universal Truth.
_______________________________________
Nigel 0
Freudian and Jungian 'theory' is based on their own, subjective experience. Any predictability (and I'm not sure there was any) could be negated by placebo or observer bias.
I'm also pretty sure their observations were not reproducible..
In reply to:
They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry
In all fairness, Freud was an MD....
Squeak 17
That has nothing to do with my assertion. I said that THEY (Jung & Freud) are not psychiatry, but merely early players in the gameQuote
In reply to:
They are not psychiatry. (they merely had some input into it) here in OZ you need a medical degree before you can enter into psychiatry
In all fairness, Freud was an MD....
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
Nigel 0
And BTW the reply was to your assertion a medical degree is needed before entering psychiatry in OZ. as if OZ was exceptional...it's the same with the rest of the world.
Quote
>Now if you accept it, you need to guess the relationship they have with
>each other, the hierarchy between them, who wants what and all other
>stuff.
No, you don't.
Technically you don't. But the next obvious step is - if we assume there is God, could we prove he doesn't want us to do something? No. This means the God wants us to do something. However another God might want us to do something else; thus we need to understand who is the boss there.
Quote
Alternative - a guy comes into counseling with some really serious problems. A scientist might take blood samples and analyze what his problem is, and why he killed himself after he left.
Looks like he kinda went to a wrong scientist. If someone has a psychological problem, he should go to a psychologist, not to a serologyst.
billvon 2,772
>something? No.
Correct.
>This means the God wants us to do something.
An unsupportable assumption. Lack of proof in one aspect of a theory does not prove the converse.
>However another God might want us to do something else; thus we need
>to understand who is the boss there.
No, you don't. No one said anything about a boss, or anyone wanting you to do anything.
>Looks like he kinda went to a wrong scientist. If someone has a
>psychological problem, he should go to a psychologist, not to a serologyst.
You are exactly correct. Not every scientist can solve every problem; indeed, there are some problems that are actually better solved by non-scientists. That does not invalidate science. Likewise, the fact that scientists cannot validate religion does not invalidate religion.
Squeak 17
QuoteI think they were more than early players in the game. Freud is widely considered the founder of the modern psychoanalytic method - despite whatever you may think of it...
And BTW the reply was to your assertion a medical degree is needed before entering psychiatry in OZ. as if OZ was exceptional...it's the same with the rest of the world.
Considered ONE of the founders, but still only an early player. the science of Psychiatric medicine has progressed just a little since his time.
I also know that most place also require an MD qual, it was used to illustrate psychiatry as part of the sciences,
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?
S.Atan
"Live a little, don't just love. So the world may know the Devil, and not just god is an Englishman"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites