Aubyn writes: There are those who dispute the assumption that psychology should be a scientific study, and perhaps you want to make that case - I would be interested in hearing it. But what I have noticed (or think I have noticed) in your posts is a desire to have things both ways; to have psychology be both a scientific study *and* to have that scientific study somehow support possible divine or supernatural explanations. That strikes me as incoherent.
The reason being that once we introduce the possible wild card of divine intervention, which is by definition beyond prediction and control (by us mortals, at least), we can never know when our results are due to our manipulation of experimental variables or to divine intervention.
Hence, we can as scientists believe in a deity, but not one who actively intervenes in the mundane. when we do science, we must assume that miracles do not occur.
This is the incoherence, in the literal sense of not holding together.
Jim Guinee: Well summarized. Color me incoherent!
--
"No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -H. L. Mencken
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
