...don't disregard experimentalists or vice versa. It's simply a practical acceptance...
I'll accept that characterization. Frank On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:41 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hm. In these cases, where Firestein talks about quantum mechanics as an > exemplar of how we navigate ignorance and my cancer survivor friend as a > defense mechanism for avoiding nihilism or depression or whatnot, there is > no "I wish I were a physicist". Firestein is a credentialed neuroscientist > and my friend is a graphic artist. Neither seem to feel inadequate in their > disciplines or wish their disciplines were more like physics. So, I really > doubt it's envy. What it sounds more like is captured well by "There are > more things in heaven and earth ...". Both Firestein and my friend are > using physics to lend some credibility by proxy to their rhetoric. I just > can't warp my way to thinking it's physics envy. > > Even in this tangent, the clinicians I've worked with don't disregard > experimentalists or vice versa. It's simply a practical acceptance. Where > large N experiments can be run, GREAT! Where they can't, we use expert > experience and heuristics. [†] In fact, gathering "raw", private, data from > patients is a common practice and the toolkits used to translate between > contexts is diverse. (We had a meeting about just such a thing yesterday.) > > So, I remain unconvinced. It's not physics envy. It's appeal to authority. > > > [†] Now, if you instead argued that by "physics envy", you simply mean > "we'd like to have more data, but we don't YET", then *maybe*. But why call > that "physics envy"? That would be a misleading moniker for having to work > with less data than you'd otherwise prefer. > > On 7/7/20 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > > Clinicians (therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, etc) use data that is > based on private, highly sensitive personal information, it's very > difficult and often impossible to apply the methods of experimental > psychologists to that data. The clinicians do write papers but by the > experimenters standards the sample sizes are so tiny as to merit dismissal > of the results. > > > > So, imagine you are a clinician. Every case you have ever seen of a > person with paranoid delusions involves significant grandiosity. (Why > would the CIA be focusing on you, Marvin) Your colleagues have observed the > same with few exceptions. Some clinician writes an article which mentions > this. Experimental psychologists read it and say you need to do a double > blind study to assert that. You realize that's impossible so you learn to > disregard experimentalists just as they disregard you. You both think, "I > wish I were a physicist but I hated math". > > > -- > ☣ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > -- Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
