I ran across this review of the religiosity-healing association and
what some wish to make of it, and thought tipsters might find it of
interest. I think the area invites scientific skepticism and would make
for good class discussion in research methods classes.
Gary
Rick Adams wrote:
Michael Sylvester wrote:
Why not conduct a personal experiment:
-get a baseline for your sleeping behavior:record your daily sleep
behavior for about 10 days and get your average slleping time.
- compare and contrast behavior after varying hours of
The concept of a devil shouldn't surprise a psychologist at all--any more
than the concept of a deity should. Deities came about from a desire to
explain the often terrifying effect of nature.
That's a pretty understandable conclusion, but it doesn't seem to hold too
well today. Given we
Jim Guinee wrote:
Nevertheless, while the devil seems a bit of the stuff that
myths are made of, there are far too many references in the
the New AND Old Testament (or Torah, if you prefer) to
easily dismiss his existence.
Rick Adams wrote:
That argument is only justified if you
Thoughts on coming to school without a helmet (see future post),
and even without a bicycle (because my #$%$^%$# chain is
broken)...
Beth Benoit asked: Is evil a survival mechanism?
Rick Adams got there first about evil being relative, but let me
put my own spin on this anyway.
Evil is an
One of the Thomistic proofs for the existence of a supreme being,
rooted in Greek philosophy, is that you cannot think of nothing. Once you
think you are thinking of nothing, that nothing is something. Hence, the
mere thinking about God is proof of God's existence, although you have to
Jim Guinee
Rene Descartes (paraphrasing here) once posited that the
belief in a perfect, infinite being could not have originated from man --
he based
this on the notion that people are finite beings, and imperfect ones at
that, and so he argued it was inconceivable that imperfect, finite
Joe, I like a small booklet that basically helps students understand
arguments and evaluating arguments from psychology readings. It is The
Critical Thinker by R. Mayer and F. Goodchild. (1990) from Wm. C. Brown. My
fave is William D. Gray's Thinking Critically about New Age Ideas, 1991
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Harry Avis wrote:
Back in the dim past when I went to graduate school we were all required to
read Harry Halow (remember him?)'s article on how to write for publication.
He describes the reason for this cliche, it has been reproduced in Doing
Psychological Experiments,
Hello Friends,
This is something I have speculated about but never had the guts to share with anyone.
It makes sense to me that if you have to do research to keep your job, you'll do
research for that sake and not for the sake of gaining knowledge, and that the
research produced will be
Actually, even though he was being ironi (which many activists cannot
understand), taken at face value, I think he was right. Most experiments
done when he was editor were not worth doing and the results were
meaningless. Remember sEr=sHr x V x D + K?. Publish or perish leads to
many
I had commented about a statement Harry Harlow had made about the
worthlessness of research in a satirical article.
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Harry Avis wrote:
Actually, even though he was being ironic (which many
activists cannot understand)
I think one would have to be a complete idiot (which,
Title: Re: Lucifer Principle
From: Stephen Black [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...as most of us are not Moslem extremists we
would probably agree that it would be evil to kill Salman
Rushdie. So how would his murder promote the survival of the
killer's genes?
Easy: if you belong to a group that
Harry Avis wrote:
Most experiments
done when he was editor were not worth doing and the results were
meaningless. Remember sEr=sHr x V x D + K?. Publish or perish leads to
many trivial studies, whether with humans or animals.
Whoa! As someone trained in the tradition to which Harry
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 10:00 AM
To: TIPS
Subject: Lucifer Principle
Stephen wrote:
'Survival mechanism' implies that an act of evil must be
something that someone does which promotes the survival of
his/her genes.
15 matches
Mail list logo
