Good morning Gerwyn and Angela,

Gerwyn wrote

Quote Originally Posted by Gerwyn View Post
good morning

Yes there is a growing trend for social constructionists to challenge scientific work to further their agenda.

They produce critiqes based on nothing but predjudice supposition and belief.

When their techniques are subject to forensic examination there tends to be a scalded cat reaction.

They base their work soley on social consructs but then assume that their conclusions are in some way objective rather than subjective opinion.People using this approach are probably the least qualified to criticise science.

This is far short of perfect by the way

All i really ask is that researchers of whatever hue define their terms and declare their theoretical perspectives and prejudices

By the way I dont include Angela in this camp.I believe that she is sincere in her beliefs.They just happen to be different to mine.

A great many people within the Critical perspective clearly have an agenda and science provides facts which they find inconvenient.Wesselly uses very similar techniques

I agree especially with the last two paragraphs - so don't fear, Angela! - and mostly with the rest, though I am a little bit more skeptical about "the scientific method" than you are, not because it doesn't exist, but because it is difficult to apply well especially in (would be) sciences like sociology and psychology.

Thus, for example, most of so-called "evidence based science" seems to me evident nonsense, with all or nearly all real intelligence filtered out by procedures and formats, that indeed do enable the average IQ of 115 to write what looks like Real Science also with what looks like Real Statistics and a Real Scientific Design, but is none of these things, but mostly a mockery, a travesty, or a parody if it were done on purpose.

And Wessely plays that game + a linguistic game derived from the postmodernists (who are in part the Frankfurter Schule in new fashionable clothes), that consists mostly of politically correct redefining of concepts and terms so they become fit for one's own political/financial ends and also in giving a moral slant to all one's science (for all is always "in the interests of the patients", "to empower patients", "to help patients" ad nauseam), also were that is not to the point at all. (That is one of the postmodern fallacies Wessely and indeed much of medical practioners in my country have adopted: Everything is seen and judged and presented in moral terms, rather than in terms of truth or probability.)

Also, e.g.

All i really ask is that researchers of whatever hue define their terms and declare their theoretical perspectives and prejudices

in my (extensive) experiences only lead to protracted debates (for decades!) on what are the proper terms, perspectives and prejudices, generally debated by people who were in majority not really interested in real science (but in "feminist science", "critical science", "postmodern science", "marxist science" a.s.o.) and who in vast majority, in my firm estimate, were not sufficiently intelligent nor sufficiently well educated to take part in such debates, if the debate were to be rational, scientific, and informed by relevant knowledge.

And there is more to it than

They produce critiqes based on nothing but predjudice supposition and belief.

Part of it is also based on - what seems to me naive - political or moral idealism, especially among students; rather a lot of it, at least in Holland in the universities, was well-orchestrated careerism (to get "Our Kind Of Folks" in the university); and most of it was and is simply stupid, and maintained by folks that should not have been in a university for lack of genuine nous and lack of any genuine interest in science (other than the status and income it provides).

But now I am going to try to wake up.

MM