On 13 Apr 2009 at 15:57, Michael Smith wrote:
Besides, some naturopaths are trained MD's, and if the training fits, why
shouldn't you be allowed to wear the shoes?
As Jim Clark astutely pointed out, if the naturopath is an MD, then
he/she already has the right to prescribe (and also has
The state of Georgia has tried to pass legislation for this, but licensed
psychologists do NOT have prescription privileges. What has been set up in
hope that this will occur is the GPA is working with the University of
Georgia's Pharmacy School and Georgia State University's Center for Brain
Alleged schizophrenia expert Fuller Torrey once made a comment that
schizophrenia follows the rule of thirds: one third will be permanently
hospitalized,one third will be intermittently in and out of care,and the other
third will be cured.
Curious about his basis for these stats,and if this
Did BF had any pets (not his experimental animals) ? And if he did (say a cat
or a dog) did he write about any conditioning with his personal household pets?
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Had a discussion about this once with his daughter Julie Vargas.
As I recall, they did have pets, but did not use them as research
subjects.
And B.F.Skinner was known as Fred, not BF.
On Apr 13, 2009, at 1:25 PM, msylves...@copper.net wrote:
Did BF had any pets (not his experimental animals)
I was wondering if anyone had good references, both current
and older, on what German psychologists did before, during,
and after World War II. I'm also interested in responses to the
following articles:
Baumgarten-Tramer, F. (1948). German psychologists and recent
events. The Journal of
Mike: Geoff Cocks (Albion College historian) has written rather extensively
about this, e.g., _Psychotherapy in the third Reich_ (mid-80s or so). As I
recall, the review of that book was on the front page of the NYT Book Review.
He's done other things as well. His email is gco...@albion.edu
The Prince George’s Community College Department of Psychology and Argosy
University are sponsoring the 11th Annual Mid-Atlantic Teachers of Psychology
(MATOP) conference on the teaching of psychology on Friday October 30, 2009
from 8 a.m. - 4 p.m.. The mission of the MATOP conference is to
Ulfried Geuter did an important research, first published in German:
Geuter, U. (1992). The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Best wishes,
Hugo
Dr. Hugo Klappenbach
National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)
National
Not direcly related to the topic,but I am getting angry at the delay of
deporting John Demjanjuk to face war crimes in Germany.
Btw,were Hans Eysenck and Konrad Lorenz Nazi sympathizers?
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill
Paul Brandon wrote:
Or what if you're one of the 5 who would die in a bathtub fall. Would you
quit bathing?
It's post hoc reasoning.
Perhaps you can explain a bit more about what you mean?
--Mike
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
On 13 Apr 2009 at 17:37, msylves...@copper.net wrote:
. Btw,were Hans
Eysenck and Konrad Lorenz Nazi sympathizers?
This deserves a response, although it's mostly all laid out in Wikipedia.
Eysenck was born in Germany but moved to England because of his strong
opposition to the Nazis.
Lorenz
When you say if you happen to be the one in ten thousand who does
die as a side effect, that means something only after the fact -- if
you know that it has happened.
Before the fact, you're evaluating relative risks: the risk of dying
from a disease and the risk of dying from the treatment
Thanks, just wasn't sure what you meant by post-hoc
--Mike
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Paul Brandon paul.bran...@mnsu.edu wrote:
When you say if you happen to be the one in ten thousand who does die as a
side effect, that means something only after the fact -- if you know that
it has
Michael Smith wrote:
Hmmm.
But what if you are one of those two?
Then you die (by definition). The problem is you don't know you are one
of those 2 until you are dead. We have to make these decision on the
basis of the probabilities well ahead of time. There are lots of things
that raise
Brandon and Chris both made good points. Another way to look at this is to note
that the question, What if you are one of the two? has an implied sense that
if you were tested you'd be identified and therefore saved- 7 - 2 = 5. But that
assumes that the two who are going to die of the disease
Thank you all for the clarifications.
Yes, I was going more along the lines of 7-2=5; 2 saved.
And yes, I agree the 30% is misleading.
And no I won't take the bet on cell phones; I believe you (Chris) are right.
The only trouble is, that the cell-phone user will be the only uninjured
party in
17 matches
Mail list logo
