Mystery Rider
Advanced Paranormal Aficionado
I am doing this comment only as a rebuttal to Kandinsky in a thread on the Jacobs-Woods debate as it was closed up, not as a thread on that subject.
My references to Freud etc., may be out of date but they are still very relevant, and there are more recent references that can used (e.g., "Hidden Side of Psychiatry" by Gary Null, PhD (garynull.org), a good exposé of psychiatry as it points out its many abuses and it says, "Millions of individuals are being grievously harmed by the mental health profession, and it's time that we as a society faced this."; “Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology”, edited by Scott Lilienfeld et al (2003)). And I am not dismissing various schools of psychology and this has nothing to do with vindicating Dr. Jacobs. I was simply responding to the comment that professional therapists are supposedly bound by a code of ethics.
I don't know anything about Stuart Appelle but Susan Clancy and the like make ludicrous claims based on fallacies that are easily debunked and ridiculed and no one can take them seriously.
I never ever, no way, no how, make straw man arguments. It is skeptics who do that and it is standard procedure for them, for instance, saying that 1 case or 2 makes hypnosis or the abduction phenomenon invalid.
And rationalism and skepticism don't go together, they are 2 opposites. Skeptics pretend to be debunkers but haven't been able to debunk anything and they are obscurantists.
End of story.
My references to Freud etc., may be out of date but they are still very relevant, and there are more recent references that can used (e.g., "Hidden Side of Psychiatry" by Gary Null, PhD (garynull.org), a good exposé of psychiatry as it points out its many abuses and it says, "Millions of individuals are being grievously harmed by the mental health profession, and it's time that we as a society faced this."; “Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology”, edited by Scott Lilienfeld et al (2003)). And I am not dismissing various schools of psychology and this has nothing to do with vindicating Dr. Jacobs. I was simply responding to the comment that professional therapists are supposedly bound by a code of ethics.
I don't know anything about Stuart Appelle but Susan Clancy and the like make ludicrous claims based on fallacies that are easily debunked and ridiculed and no one can take them seriously.
I never ever, no way, no how, make straw man arguments. It is skeptics who do that and it is standard procedure for them, for instance, saying that 1 case or 2 makes hypnosis or the abduction phenomenon invalid.
And rationalism and skepticism don't go together, they are 2 opposites. Skeptics pretend to be debunkers but haven't been able to debunk anything and they are obscurantists.
End of story.