Re: How We Know

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011, Laval Hunsucker wrote:

> And as far as determining and subsequently ignoring what Jim
> terms "real garbage" is concerned, I think that we have to be
> cautious with our concepts here.

  Determining what is or is not "garbage" can be entirly subjective? 
Remember, for example, "Garbagology" (and I doubt whether it has entirely 
disappeared)?

  Here's an example: media talking-heads make peculiarly "loaded" 
observations, which *might* be considered "garbage" getting in the way of 
the analysis of genuine information. However, if one takes the collective 
"loaded" observations of each speaker about each topic, a great deal can 
be calculated (yes, mathematically) regarding the nature of commentary 
itself as well as about the topics and the speakers.

  For example, if one collates every critical remark made by a 
"progressive" speaker regarding "conservative" political actors and 
considers the collation a body of knowledge potentially indicative of a 
common principle of which neither personage is aware, some interesting 
results ensue.

  Now, the process does represent a signficantly advanced research paradigm 
for social science, but it also represents a means of teaching critical 
thinking, a topic sadly lacking in basic American curricula as well as the 
media.

> John's "objective definitions in the psychological community". 
> Definitions are not, even [or especially ?] in psychology, discovered 
> like natural phenomena, or handed down from on high. It's human beings 
> who craft them.

  I can agree that the psychological "definitions" (or behavioral 
symptomology) represented as medical "fact" in the DSM (see Wikipedia) are 
indeed, apparently, subjective, in that they are based upon subjective 
observations and interpretations of observations, even though they 
represent consensus agreement within the community for use in practical 
situations (e.g. diagnoses).

  However, expanding neurophysiological research identifying specific brain 
structural disorders, due to genetic, immunological and/or damage-related 
factors, *and* their correlation with the DSM symtomological conclusions 
will eventually (hopefully sooner that later) provide more definitively 
objective measures. Some are already either available or practically 
conjectured as working hypotheses.

  Aside: Curiously, the DSM-based psychological community must recognize 
the problem, since, whenever a particular "disorder" is recognized as 
having a conclusively identified physical cause, it is dropped from their 
"bible" (the DSM).

Cheers!

jgm
                                             John G. Marr
                                             Cataloger
                                             CDS, UL
                                             Univ. of New Mexico
                                             Albuquerque, NM 87131
                                             jmarr_at_unm.edu
                                             jmarr_at_flash.net


     **There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.