3 ms·

"it's related to this". It sounds similar, maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing. To glibly conflate this with Scientology is very sloppy thinki

by theoh 8y ago

"it's related to this". It sounds similar, maybe, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing. To glibly conflate this with Scientology is very sloppy thinking. Scientific progress calls for ideas and evidence to be evaluated on their merits. Accusations of "guilt by association" when a particular idea happens to vaguely resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that.

bryanSmith0 8y ago
Except there was no accusation of guilt by association. An association was made, yes. What is the accusation?
- theoh 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... The comment effectively accused the doctors of charlatanism.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - bryanSmith0 8y ago
    Read it again. You are equating scientology and dianetics to charlatanism, not the author of the inital reply. He/She simply stated "x is like y". Why did you flag my other responses, which correctly pointed out that you are the one making the fallacy of guilt by association, not the author?
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    No, I did not accuse the doctors of charlatanism. I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article. This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article. I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact. Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Unless looked at Dianetics at all, and it's historical weirdness, I'm going to refer to your response as 'glib' if anything. If you did, you'd see there are glaringly obvious relationship between what is discussed in the article, and the basis of Dianetics; not just 'similar' they are effectively describing the same thing. " resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that." 'Dianetics' has not been debunked so much as it hasn't been studied because it's full of all sorts of things that don't make sense (it would be pointless). But - there are some interesting and possibly valid points in there, for example - the idea described in this article. And consider that everything in psychology seems to be 'debunked' as we still don't have a good framework for understanding the human mind. To boot - most psychological 'science' can't even be reproduced in 2018. And I literally mean most [1]. Dianetics is mostly nutbars, but the similarity between what is described in the article, and what was popularized by Dianetics long ago is not superficial, it's quite strong. It doesn't matter that L Ron Hubbard was a hustler. [1] https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-...

by theoh 8y ago

bryanSmith0 8y ago

Except there was no accusation of guilt by association. An association was made, yes. What is the accusation?

theoh 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_a... The comment effectively accused the doctors of charlatanism.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanSmith0 8y ago
  Read it again. You are equating scientology and dianetics to charlatanism, not the author of the inital reply. He/She simply stated "x is like y". Why did you flag my other responses, which correctly pointed out that you are the one making the fallacy of guilt by association, not the author?
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  No, I did not accuse the doctors of charlatanism. I said there was an obvious relationship between some of the underpinnings of Dianetics and what is described in this article. This is patently obvious to anyone who's read Dianetics, and the article. I don't support Dianetics overall as anything reasonable because it's mostly rubbish, but again, some of the ideas expressed in there are nary identical to what is described in the article, which is just a fact. Not everything is black and white: a lot of current psychology is scientifically rubbish, and a lot of ideas postulated in the past by not-so-straight people are at least interesting, and may have shades of validity.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Unless looked at Dianetics at all, and it's historical weirdness, I'm going to refer to your response as 'glib' if anything. If you did, you'd see there are glaringly obvious relationship between what is discussed in the article, and the basis of Dianetics; not just 'similar' they are effectively describing the same thing. " resemble something else that has been debunked aren't part of that." 'Dianetics' has not been debunked so much as it hasn't been studied because it's full of all sorts of things that don't make sense (it would be pointless). But - there are some interesting and possibly valid points in there, for example - the idea described in this article. And consider that everything in psychology seems to be 'debunked' as we still don't have a good framework for understanding the human mind. To boot - most psychological 'science' can't even be reproduced in 2018. And I literally mean most [1]. Dianetics is mostly nutbars, but the similarity between what is described in the article, and what was popularized by Dianetics long ago is not superficial, it's quite strong. It doesn't matter that L Ron Hubbard was a hustler. [1] https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 https://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-...