Hi Tim. Yes, I graduated from York. I even took a course from Chris (the history guy). I thought he (Chris) would have lambasted me already on the off the cuff remark about history being nothing but personal experience written down. :-). Oh well, he is after all a nice guy. Actually I don't think CPR is passé, but I don't have 65 years of the history of psych at my command, not to mention 125 years of philosophy of science! I think arguing philosophy is usually fun, but not on email--it's almost impossible. Nevertheless, I am not arguing against the tenants of the Boulder model (although I'm not sure how much research practicing clinicians engage in after graduating--surely there's a study :-)) Nor for skeptical rationalism. (I'm also not so sure that the philosophy of science is as unified and directional to be able to fly in the face of it :-)) My main point was simply that if educators treat other viewpoints as so much codswallop it inadvertently criticizes the holders of those views (some of which may be students). And if it is a central tenant in the person's makeup can we really afford to be that callous? Even if science and its results were the whole truth and nothing but the truth (which I dispute) it doesn't give such holders of the truth the right to clobber others with that viewpoint (true or not). People are invested in their views. To criticize their views is to criticize them. We need to be very careful as educators, therapists, priests, or friends! My main hope was just to be a voice to give check lest we bulldoze under the beliefs and worldviews of others because they don't measure up to western science. It wouldn't do them, or us any good--Zen Buddhists will still view satori as a spiritual experience (or not :-)) whether they are informed that it is 'merely' chemicals in their brain or not. I'll be gone for a week (yea) and so can't reply to other posts. By the time I get back this obviously important document will have no doubt have been long forgotten and dismissed. I think then, that I will go see a Zen Master about something which has been bothering me. I keep hearing the sound of one hand clapping! --Mike
--- On Fri, 7/18/08, Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Shearon, Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [tips] psychic kids now understood To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, July 18, 2008, 1:28 PM Michael (Smith) And if that is your dissertation wouldn't that make you a York U. PhD? :) Kant certainly did reflect on the "Limits to pure reason" but that is also a rather idiomatic translation of "Pure reason", if my reading of philosophy or German can be at all trusted. Surely you aren't suggesting that clinical psychology should somehow return to a practice based on the categorical imperative or retreat to skeptical rationalism? If so that seems to fly in the face of the tenets of the Boulder training model and about 60+ years of history in psychology and 125+ years in philosophy of science. Kant is hardly held up as the source to read to understand modern psychological or scientific practice (CPR was first published, if memory serves, in 1871?) Tim _______________________________ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor and Chair Department of Psychology The College of Idaho Caldwell, ID 83605 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] teaching: intro to neuropsychology; psychopharmacology; general; history and systems "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:44:33 -0700, Michael Smith wrote: >I don't respond much on TIPS but read most of the stuff. >My Ph.D. was in computational neuroscience (eye movement control) >through psychology. --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
