[FRIAM] Book publishing advice needed

[Frank Wimberly]

...don't disregard experimentalists or vice versa. It's simply a practical
acceptance...

I'll accept that characterization.

Frank

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:41 PM ∄ uǝlƃ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hm. In these cases, where Firestein talks about quantum mechanics as an
> exemplar of how we navigate ignorance and my cancer survivor friend as a
> defense mechanism for avoiding nihilism or depression or whatnot, there is
> no "I wish I were a physicist". Firestein is a credentialed neuroscientist
> and my friend is a graphic artist. Neither seem to feel inadequate in their
> disciplines or wish their disciplines were more like physics. So, I really
> doubt it's envy. What it sounds more like is captured well by "There are
> more things in heaven and earth ...". Both Firestein and my friend are
> using physics to lend some credibility by proxy to their rhetoric. I just
> can't warp my way to thinking it's physics envy.
>
> Even in this tangent, the clinicians I've worked with don't disregard
> experimentalists or vice versa. It's simply a practical acceptance. Where
> large N experiments can be run, GREAT! Where they can't, we use expert
> experience and heuristics. [†] In fact, gathering "raw", private, data from
> patients is a common practice and the toolkits used to translate between
> contexts is diverse. (We had a meeting about just such a thing yesterday.)
>
> So, I remain unconvinced. It's not physics envy. It's appeal to authority.
>
>
> [†] Now, if you instead argued that by "physics envy", you simply mean
> "we'd like to have more data, but we don't YET", then *maybe*. But why call
> that "physics envy"? That would be a misleading moniker for having to work
> with less data than you'd otherwise prefer.
>
> On 7/7/20 11:53 AM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > Clinicians (therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, etc) use data that is
> based on private, highly sensitive personal information, it's very
> difficult and often impossible to apply the methods of experimental
> psychologists to that data.  The clinicians do write papers but by the
> experimenters standards the sample sizes are so tiny as to merit dismissal
> of the results.
> >
> > So, imagine you are a clinician.  Every case you have ever seen of a
> person with paranoid delusions involves significant grandiosity.  (Why
> would the CIA be focusing on you, Marvin) Your colleagues have observed the
> same with few exceptions.  Some clinician writes an article which mentions
> this.  Experimental psychologists read it and say you need to do a double
> blind study to assert that.  You realize that's impossible so you learn to
> disregard experimentalists just as they disregard you.  You both think, "I
> wish I were a physicist but I hated math".
>
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>


-- 
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505
505 670-9918
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200707/c6a6ba91/attachment.html>