4 ms·
Psychonetics originated from academic research[1] and appears to employ scientific criteria and methodology (such as [27, 28]) in many aspects. That's a lot of
by BoppreH 5y ago
Psychonetics originated from academic research[1] and appears to employ scientific criteria and methodology (such as [27, 28]) in many aspects.
That's a lot of qualifiers.
So it originated (but may not have continued) from academic (but not necessarily peer reviewed) research, and appears (but may not actually) employ scientific criteria and methodology in many (but not all) aspects.
I hope it's just unfortunate writing, but I can't help but take it as a pseudoscience red flag.
- jorgesborges 5y agoThe purpose isn’t to explain anything scientifically but rather to find practical solutions to a given problem. >> However, that team of researchers was seeking solutions to their tasks rather than explanations concerning the observed phenomena. The researchers' approach could be called "technological". >> A technological approach differs from a scientific approach in the sense that the former does not claim to develop explanations as long as there are reproducible steps that can be followed to reach a predictable result.
- qwerty456127 5y agoSure, but "technological approach" doesn't sound nearly as cool and specific as "scientific approach" does. Say "scientific approach" and people think rationality, granularity and reproducibility. Say "technological approach" and people think something boring, complex and, paradoxically, impractical. It is also curious to mention Oleg Bakhtiyarov specifically discusses the technological and a bunch of other approaches in the beginning of his "active consciousness" book referenced in the article and considers "organismic approach" the next step after it. I hope somebody is going to translate the book into English once.