Question 11

Post Reply New Topic

Question 11. Was materialistic science the result of male dominance in scientific fields? Will increasing numbers of women scientists lead to a less materialistic approach to science?
excerpt:
The psychologist believed my treatment of Tony had caused him to become abnormal! Never in my wildest dreams, had it occurred to me that anyone would have such an awful opinion of me. Being a wife and mother was the role I'd chosen in life. I could have been a good enough architect, but that had been an unimportant, temporary occupation. When the children became old enough to start school, I'd probably look for another job as an architectural draftsman. In the meantime I'd found ways to earn money and still be a stay-at-home mom. Now after knowing me for three months, Dr. Zircon was calmly and impersonally declaring me to be such an inadequate mother that I had warped my little boy's emotional growth and caused him to be defective. I felt almost physically ill to think anyone believed such a terrible thing. The other women were watching me solemnly. I sat in shocked silence, barely aware of whatever happened during the rest of the hour.

Dr. Zircon often mentioned that we were all too emotionally involved with our children - except one of us wasn't emotionally involved at all. His accusation of no emotional involvement sounded more malignant than the “too much emotional involvement” with which the other women were being charged. I’m sure the other mothers agreed that loving their children too much was preferable to being the monster Dr. Zircon had declared me to be, a mother who felt nothing for her children.

There were very few female therapists in those days. The notion that a mother might warp her child's growth by a subtle, subconscious rejection was a theory initiated by men, and inflicted upon women by men.

A Few Impertinent Questions about Autism, Freudianism and Materialism
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

No.

Scientific method can only operate on a material reality. BY DEFINITION, it requires that results can be measured empirically and that those results can be explained by a reproducible and singular chain of cause and effect. Any departure from this renders the descriptions of phenomena less and less scientific, depending on the degree of variance from the ideal. Hence, psychology is less scientific than physics since the measurements of psychological phenomena are difficult to take in a strictly empirical manner and the reproducibility of experiments is less reliable.

You might be able to make a case that scientific method came about because men were more comfortable with framing the description universe in this manner. If women were the dominant cultural force then perhaps a different descriptive paradigm would have emerged.

1. You're a sexist.

2. Stop spamming this forum just to try and sell your book or whatever. There is no need for all these threads.

I’m curious as to how many of you find the diagnosis of Asperger’s useful and how many of you regard your Aspie traits as mere deviations from average, that are assets at times? (Personally, I would never choose to be more average.) I’m not selling the book, Invader. It can be read for free at:

http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

Question 12

Is science ever superior to nature? Or does the best medicine consist of finding ways of helping nature to heal itself?

The psychologist stood menacingly over me. "You know," he warned, "Tony is not going to grow up - or talk - until you do something!"

I knew what he meant by "do something". Psychology books described how feelings of hostility and incestuous thoughts about one's parents dominate most people's lives. Dr. Zircon was apparently furious because I refused to confess any such feelings. One way to win an argument is to declare all dissent to be pathological. Freud was the discoverer of "denial". Patients who refused to admit to one of his imaginative diagnoses were accused of being "in denial". Faced with such a scientific accusation, who could win an argument with an analyst?
http://30145.myauthorsite.com/

You are defining science as materialism, wavefreak58. So if free will and crativity exist, they can't be scientifically investigated? Would you define quantum physics as less “scientific” than Newtonian physics. If life isn‘t a deterministic, mechanical device, it would seem to lie outside science, according to your definition. I agree that scientific investigations of non mechanical systems would be less precise. But pretending a system is mechanical for the purpose of investigation, when it really is neither deterministic nor mechanical, doesn’t sound very scientific, does it? Would you agree that science might defined as “any investigation of reality“?

define reality bertvan also cut down on the Spam please its annoying.

Your questions are not as good as you think. The have the veneer of depth, but lack precision and clarity. Just my opinion.

Science cannot be separated from nature. We, as a species, are part of nature. Everything we do is part of nature. You cannot separate us, nor our endeavors, from nature.

You seem to be asking if scientifically derived cures are ever better than those derived from non human processes.

Define better. Define cure.

Nature, if you mean the non-human world, cares not for healing or cures. It simply changes, sometimes to the benefit of an individual, sometimes not. The cure for all the side affects of malnourishment in a carnivore is a few good meals. But the hunted might not feel that is a cure. Nature "healing itself" could mean the elimination of an entire species.

I am also thinking these questions are more about promoting your book than learning what others think. Your word count ratio of responses to our answers vs excerpts of your book suggests you are more interested in what you have to say than what we have to say.

Last edited by wavefreak58 on 23 Oct 2010, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nature and science cannot be seperated! A subatomical particle can exist anywhere and be anything. It's the bonds and how many sub atomic particles and different combinations that make up "nature". We are all the same particles.

Good thread Bertvan. 'Science' is full of holes

Weather prediction models still do not incorporate the moon activity, a left over from anti pagan church pressure on science, and an anti women/nature element.

Most people here dont understand Bertvan. Female sensitivities must be repressed to facilitate the current male domination. Why do you think so many women are given antidepressants willy nilly by doc's?

IS WP a conditioning vehicle (sock puppet) for these male hierarchy's? Are male dictates similar to examples in Question11, shoved down peoples throats here at WP? When interesting discussion like this arrives in the controversial box, why does rejection and hostility accompany these ideas? Is ignorance reciprocated by parroting erroneous science, peddled by authoritarian sources with malignant motives to control readers?

Last edited by Surfman on 23 Oct 2010, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, this is quite handy, if I could manage to trudge through all these posts, I wouldn't need to buy the book she is pushing...

the full book is on the site she linked she should just stick one link in her Sig and stop mentioning her book in her posts.

Your posts are much more a waste of space?

A tour de force in facetiousness ...

I thought it was quite good for a spur of the moment rant...

A good question would be: Does every person have the same number of atoms as everyone else?

Emphasizing with some Aspie traits, I had wondered if the condition might just be an extreme example of my own personality, which I regard as a perfectly normal deviation from average. Obviously the answer is no. Oh well, I’ve been wrong before. bye. No one answered my question:

Most the time it's fun not to be average, at least for me.