> Speaking of science, earlier I made the point that scientists are > human beings, and fully capable of being motivated by ambitions > other than the desire to discover truth. Well, I just came across > the following passage in my current subway reading, > > "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World Of The Psychopaths Among > Us", by Robert D. Hare, PhD. > > - ------------ > As a result, the prison records were often filled with carefully > written personality profiles that seemed embarrassingly at odds with > what everyone else in the prison knew about the inmates in > question. I recall one file in which the psychologist had used a > battery of self-report tests to conclude that a callous killer was > actually a sensitive, caring individual who needed only the > psychological equivalent of a warm hug! Because of the uncritical > use of personality tests, the literature was (and still is) > cluttered with studies that purported to be about psychopathy but > actually had very little to do with it. > - ---------------- > > In other words, in addition to ideology, conformity, and careerism, > we can add naivete and incompetence to the list of reasons why > nothing, not even science articles in peer reviewed journals, can be > the final word on anything.
Now there's a red herring if ever there was one.
Psychiatry is science? Since when?
- --Lou Talman Department of Mathematical & Computer Sciences Metropolitan State College of Denver