Re: Researched reasoning for relative contact

[Sherrill Clark <sjclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>The question is not what is preferred, but rather what is better.  I
>submit that we don't know that unless decent, methodologically sound
>research is actually done.  Otherwise, all we are dealing with is folk
>psychology and tales of aged spouses, as it were.

Thanks for the response.  I would venture to disagree with you, 
however the notion that the only way we humans "know" things is 
through "decent, methodologically sound research" according to 
current paradigms versus superstition is not correct.  It's not a 
black and white universe.  There is a lot to be learned in between.

>Humans have a rather immense capacity to see patterns where none exist,
>and miss those that are there, but hidden or not considered important due
>to cognitive set.  We tend to confirm our positions, rather than challenge
>them.  All this is useful day to day, and for survival in our ancestor's
>age, but these do not assist in actually coming face to face with real
>facts.  There, the rigorous application of the scientific method is best
>in eliminating these 'superstitions', and policies based on facts are
>always going to be of help to more people than those based on what we
believe rather than actually know.

Hence we use statistics and probabilistic models.

>As an example, using this situation, in your experience, how many times
>has relative placement been decidedly bad in outcome?  If you actually
>spent the time to do a little research on your own case files, would that
>number be the same?  People tend to remember those events which support
>their preconceptions, and keeping a decent countof events which both
>support *and* contradict them is usually an eye opening experience.

Have you actually conducted that study?  :')

>Finally, as you are but one person; can you assume your cases are
>representative of the rest of the world?  Here, again, applying decent
>methods to assessing the issue will give a more usable picture of what is
>going on, rather than a look into what might be a skewed and extremely
>small sample.
>
>>  conservative (political) way to slow decision making or to drive
>>  policy?  Should it?

This is the the discussion we need to have.  Thanks.

>Actually it seems they are being conservative toward claims by authority -
>they are not accepting any such 'claims to knowledge'.  What has been
>asked for is a summary of facts on this issue.  Yes, facts, real,
>demonstrated facts, should always rule the day when they are available. 
>How they are applied in any specifc situation is a matter of judgement, of
>course, but that is always better than an opinion without solid bases in
>the data. 
>
>--
>John M. Price, PhD                                     jmprice@calweb.com
>Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
>Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683

-- 
Sherrill Clark (sjclark@uclink4.berkeley.edu)
CalSWEC main office phone: 510-642-9272