SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: SIGIA-L: cost justifying therapy
RE: SIGIA-L: cost justifying therapy
From: Lawrence, Sean (slawrence_at_seveninteractive.com)
Date: Thu Oct 18 2001 - 00:13:48 EDT
AH, postuation of the intellectual tradition would see scientific theroy as
a linear progression entirely. It isn't. Modern physicists are often
re-discovering that ancient theories indeed have more credence than some
that have had the endorsement of modern thought. Theere certainly is a
progression but it isna't entirely a straightforward line. Freud and Jung
had despicable ideas that were obviously resultant tof the predjudices of
their era, and we would hope they could transcend them but many of their
theories, Jung's in particular, stand on ancient thought like that of
Marcilio Focino(sp) that time tested and continually reevevaluated and
updated for the modern era(s).
Modern thought is often reconsidered on new evidence that disproves it
entirely. Heracliteus, who we know too little about, was a tremendous
inspiration to the novelist John Fowles (a post modern thinker and devout
feminist), was also such a thinker. He recognized millenia ago what wasn't
obvious to Aristotle even generations after his period. Thought is
cyclical, even barring the loss due to a lack of technological
advancements. Scientific rigor is not an end-all be all of human thought,
but an approach to age old questions. Lack of usage or dependance on
scientific rigor does not make ones ideas silly, though they can be
dangerous, but rather an approach to further understanding of being human
that has lead to advancements in sexual equality, the overtuning of the
preposterous notion of racial superiority, and other such condescening
concepts (geocentrism anyone?), will lead us closer to a comprehension of
our condition. The scientific method and the credibility ot bestows is only
a segment on the puzzle that is the human drama. Hopefully, IA will
incorporate the lessons humanity has won in it's hard fought struggles with
itself and mine gold from our collective endeavors.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Fahey [askrom] [mailto:askROM_at_graphpaper.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 9:33 PM
To: sigia-l_at_asis.org; 'Laura Norvig'; Lawrence, Sean;
lou_at_louisrosenfeld.com
Subject: RE: SIGIA-L: cost justifying therapy
Laura wrote:
> Hmm, that's a strong value judgment. Lack of scientific rigor doesn't
> necessarily make a person's insights wrong. Jung's work led to
> instruments such as the Myers-Briggs test that represent
> unquantifiable/fuzzy characteristics in meaningful ways.
Sean wrote:
> Jung might be considered a quack by modern scientific standards
> but that does not discredit his insights or theories, which are still
> practiced today.
My point is merely that *today's standards* of scientific rigor were not
applicable 100 or even 50 years ago. History is full of important
thinkers who have made some good and some bad points. Sometimes a bad
idea leads to good ones, for example the way astrology led to astronomy,
or the way alchemy led to chemistry. Aristotle was (again, by today's
standards) wrong about nearly everything he'd ever written, yet his
insights were critical in getting us to where we are today
philosophically and scientifically.
Freud and Jung are similar in their blending of science with
philosophical/spiritual speculation. And both have their fair share of
absolutely absurd lapses of sense. Freud once wrote that women invented
weaving by braiding their pubic hair in an attempt to hide their
"deficiency" due to penis envy. Jung was an emphatic beleiver in
supernatural phenomenon such as telepathy and ghosts and referred to
psychoanalysis as "not a science, but a religion" (and his racial
theories are unforgivable). Both had some pretty f*ed up ideas about
sexuality that seem to have only recently been extracted from the psych
curriculum. But they had other, non-stupid ideas, too, and they and
their contemporaries indisputably formed the foundation of what would
become, after many decades of scientific growth, the respected fields of
psychoanalysis, psychiatry, neurology, behavioral science, etc.
So yeah, I completely agree that "Lack of scientific rigor doesn't
necessarily make a person's insights wrong." but it is interesting that
most of us practice our craft with a winked-at lack of scientific rigor
similar to the lack of scientific rigor practiced by other emerging
sciences in the past. Whether or not you choose to allow knowledge of
some of the silly and/or dangerous things these two particular men have
said to discredit their more insightful theories is, of course, up to
you.
Louis wrote:
> Here I'm looking for a metaphor that will help us
> *sell*, not perform, IA. In other words, if a client is
> already shelling out for consulting in "fuzzy" areas like
> organizational dynamics, better interpersonal communications,
> Meyers-Briggs testing, and other approaches intended to
> address organizational maladies, why not IA?
Oh, okay, in that case, bring on the metaphor$! :)
-Cf
[christopher eli fahey]
art: http://www.graphpaper.com
science: http://www.askrom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:50 EST
|
