Why is it that so many intellectuals don't believe that there can be pyschological harm? Do they think that our minds don't work under the same causal principles as the rest of the universe; that brains under-determine the mind? Do our top scientists really believe in anti-empirical and anti-scientific concepts such as immortal souls? Or, better, believe what they will - do we really want to be funding people who think they know about these immortal souls?
What is this talk about souls? Isn't this exactly what the anti-PC movement is doing? Psychological research in the 60s and 70s showed that there are strong correlations between language, self perception, mental health, and bodily health. It's perhaps unfortunate that this arose in the time of post-modern hoopla. But they were at least effective in attempting to integrate this information into other fields. If I can identify an empirical correlation, is that any less useful than a correlation between fists and bruising? (Well, of course it is! But smart people should understand how to think about and draw generalizations from different standards of statistical significance!)
What is this talk about souls? Isn't this exactly what the anti-PC movement is doing? Psychological research in the 60s and 70s showed that there are strong correlations between language, self perception, mental health, and bodily health. It's perhaps unfortunate that this arose in the time of post-modern hoopla. But they were at least effective in attempting to integrate this information into other fields. If I can identify an empirical correlation, is that any less useful than a correlation between fists and bruising? (Well, of course it is! But smart people should understand how to think about and draw generalizations from different standards of statistical significance!)
No comments:
Post a Comment