Now wait a minute. You're splitting semantic hairs. Didn't you say that
the instances I share cannot be used for the purposes of making sweeping
generalizations? That they serve no "scientific" purpose. If I misread
you, I'm sorry. I made the point that I didn't just didn't just pull my
positions out of the air and use these people and instance to make up
unfounded generalizations or used inductively to "prove" the validity of
assumed and preconceived truths. I maintain that they are valid and need
consideration even though they cannot be subject to double blind studies
and statistical analysis. They are the deductive sum of observations,
study, and serious reflections, and thereby have a great validity. And
again, I agree your (editorially) orientation is how you described it.
On the other hand, I know some psychologists and psychiartrists who are
humanists. I say that there are other equally valid ways of discovering
"truths," especially about that complex and complicated human being. You
may not agree or accept my approach, and this is your right. You rightly
ask me to consider your (editorially) approach; I do and I find it
incomplete. I reciprocate with my request to give me some credit for
arriving at my positions. This time you do me the public injustice.
Make it a good day.
--Louis--
Louis Schmier www.therandomthoughts.com
Department of History www.halcyon.com/arborhts/louis.html
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /~\ /\ /\
(229-333-5947) /^\ / \ / /~ \ /~\__/\
/ \__/ \/ / /\ /~ \
/\/\-/ /^\___\______\_______/__/_______/^\
-_~ / "If you want to climb mountains, \ /^\
_ _ / don't practice on mole hills" -\____
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
