Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[worm]

You have an idea that makes it impossible to deny the possibility of the spaghetti monster being a god, despite the fact that we know it isn't. And you reckon it's me that's lost it?

[eFestivals]

So fucking what?! What has this got to do with psychology and physics?

Everything. If something has shit data and a shit method you get shit conclusions - but all the science to that shit still stacks up as good.

We know that physics doesn't get shit conclusions. The proof is in the testing.

We know that psychology does get shit conclusions. The proof is in the testing.

[worm]

I repeat:

A 'thought process' is based upon logic, not thinking. And logic is seen through observed behaviour independent of physical forces, such as wind or gravity. There is no need to seek thinking. Psychology doesn't give two fucks about thinking. It gives a fuck about the logic of a sentient entity as its behaviour is observed. It looks at the patterns of behaviour and the outcome of such behaviour.

Psychological data does not relate to the mind. It relates to the logic and patterns of observable behaviour. Just as physical data relates to the logic and patterns of observable behaviour. Where physical data is dependent, psychological data is independent.

Physical theorists then posit certain things about that data, just as psychological theorists posit things about their data. Theory is an important part of science. It is the hypothesis. You have a problem with theory.

[eFestivals]

What planet are you living on man? This is irrelevant shite you're spouting. It doesn't relate in any way whatsoever.

It does. It's at the heart of everything we're discussing.

We know that the spaghetti monster isn't a god, and yet you give credence to a method that allows for the possibility it could be.

That screams that something is wrong with the science of your method. Why can you not see that?

Just because something is done scientifically it doesn't make it good science.

[eFestivals]

You have a problem with theory.

Nope. Just bad theory.

[worm]

We know that physics doesn't get shit conclusions. The proof is in the testing.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[worm]

We know that the spaghetti monster isn't a god, and yet you give credence to a method that allows for the possibility it could be.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

As with all science, the answer depends upon the question and in many, many instances the question is wrong.

So what I said above then, which you denied then.

Anyway, that's good. We're getting somewhere.

And how good any question is, is based on previous premises.

Physical sciences have a solid base, as a mature science. Having got that solid base they've then been able to ask the right questions so often to get the massive progress that we've had.

Psychological things do not have the solid base, and so do not have anything to build from. It has ever weaker - flawed - ideas (as proven by the too-many-exceptions in testing) built on top of each other, which the discipline clings to because of the absence of anything good to cling to instead. It has not learnt how to ask the right questions. Dark ages stuff.

[worm]

Psychological things do not have the solid base

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Science does. If it can't measure it, then science says fuck all. This is science Neil.

it's wrongly applied science worm. If we know it means fuck all, then it DOES mean fuck all.

Reason, on the other hand, would tell us that it's bollocks.

Yup. Just as reason tells us so much of psychology is bollocks.

It's just a shame that the psycho-nutters won't give up on power for reason.

[eFestivals]

They are all based upon observable behaviour independent of physical forces.

'based on' is not the same thing as 'is'.

We know much of thought is not observable. That is very far from irrelevant.

Just as with the spaghetti monster, we know that the method we're using is not up to the job being asked of it - other information we hold tells us so.

[worm]

it's wrongly applied science worm. If we know it means fuck all, then it DOES mean fuck all.

[worm]

We know much of thought is not observable.

[worm]

Phrenology is the study of thinking, not psychology. Psychology is the logical study of independent behaviour. Phrenology is frowned upon as bullshit by the world of psychology. It is a meta-psychology.

[eFestivals]

That's not scientific!

You don't know science. Stop speaking for it.

oh do fuck off.

I'm demonstrating to you the limits of useful science. Just because science can be methodically done doesn't make anything of that science worthwhile.

So you shouting from the roof tops that psychology is done scientifically means fuck all in itself. It only means something if the science that is done is worthwhile science.

When the methods choose to ignore so much of what we do know because of their inconvenience to those methods, then what you get is not science but worthless science. It is not an application of knowledge.

An application of knowledge is the application of all we know, not just the bits that fit existing dogma.

No it doesn't.

It does. Its concepts are not universally applicable, thus demonstrating that those concepts are flawed.

That's reason being applied above scientific knowledge. The relevant before the irrelevant.

[worm]

I'm demonstrating to you the limits of useful science. Just because science can be methodically done doesn't make anything of that science worthwhile.

[worm]

It does. Its concepts are not universally applicable, thus demonstrating that those concepts are flawed.

[eFestivals]

A 'thought process' is based upon logic, not thinking.

aside from the obvious flaw in that, there's also the fact that we are patently aware that our thought processes are not based in logic (as we understand it and apply it today, anyway). If they were then psychology would probably have a bit more of a clue what it was talking about.

And of course that's another place where reason should over-ride science. And it does for most of us who haven't swallowed a book.

And logic is seen through observed behaviour independent of physical forces, such as wind or gravity.

and so we know that such ideas are not fit for purpose, because we know that any observed actions is not the only output.

It's about the equivalent of saying that gravity acts on an apple but the apple doesn't fall. It's an ignoral of important data. It's a revision of the facts, of making the result fit the theory rather than the theory matching the reality.

It gives a fuck about the logic of a sentient entity as its behaviour is observed.

once some logic is pinned down to work from, you're away.

Unfortunately, the lack of logic being applied is displayed within the lack of consistency of results.

You have absolutely no idea what science is or what psychology is.

the confusion is all your own.

The word 'science' is not just one thing of one level of substance. Just because scientific method is used doesn't make anything of the results good or worthwhile - as the weather forecasts analogy gets to show.

[feral chile]

and so we know that such ideas are not fit for purpose, because we know that any observed actions is not the only output.

Edited August 29, 2012 by feral chile

[scappaflow]

Tough one.

Yes - people have a right to die (should they choose to take the action themselves), but I don't believe the law should be changed to oblige people (professionals, family members) to facilitate the death of someone that wants to die.

Life is precious.

The problem with euthanasia is that it could become the norm. When people contract x disease or y condition, they give it a few months, say their goodbyes then swallow a cup of something. Although I'm sure a doctor would go through a very thorough process in determining if the decision of someone was final - the fact remains that people may feel they are burdening their family and feel obliged to end their own life.

Also - there is no telling what science could come up with in the future. Drugs to treat a terrible condition could be developed improving the quality of life for people suffering who though their life was better off ended.

[feral chile]

Tough one.

Yes - people have a right to die (should they choose to take the action themselves), but I don't believe the law should be changed to oblige people (professionals, family members) to facilitate the death of someone that wants to die.

Life is precious.

The problem with euthanasia is that it could become the norm. When people contract x disease or y condition, they give it a few months, say their goodbyes then swallow a cup of something. Although I'm sure a doctor would go through a very thorough process in determining if the decision of someone was final - the fact remains that people may feel they are burdening their family and feel obliged to end their own life.

Also - there is no telling what science could come up with in the future. Drugs to treat a terrible condition could be developed improving the quality of life for people suffering who though their life was better off ended.

[eFestivals]

What other output are you thinking of?

Action is the output of thought. No action is also the output of thought, because the output of thought can be another thought; we know this no less than we know we exist.

It's also the case that decisions - an output of thought - are taken but action is deferred, perhaps to a time outside of a researcher's view.

And of course, we also know that actions are not always the output of thought. While the ones we're sure of are due to exceptional circumstances (medical conditions, etc) that doesn't preclude the possibility that other actions are thought to be the output of thought but are not.

And we know that thoughts are not reliable (unless tested against the real world and the experiences of others). That's squared when we think of thought (which is something which cannot be tested).

Any attempt at a study which ignores the knowledge we have because of the difficulties (impossibilities, perhaps) of researching those parts and which instead goes with what is possible and pretends those awkward parts aren't there is always going to give a flawed, or at best unreliable, conclusion.

The fact conclusions are drawn and concepts built up from a study that is made in that clearly flawed way isn't a triumph of knowledge over adversity but the triumph of stupidity over sense.

Psychology doesn't tend to study 'thinking' rather it looks at cognition - memory, attention etc.

which are of course thought processes (or the results of).

As I've said to you previously, there's parts of psychology which i've no problem with. What's going on here is me tackling specifically what worm has said.

[eFestivals]

There's no norm in this to measure against.

and even if there was, what says that the norm has any meaning?

Just because the norm might be people choosing to live, it doesn't prove there's anything wrong with choosing to die.

The only person in the right place to know is the self.

[worm]

Action is the output of thought.

[worm]

aside from the obvious flaw in that, there's also the fact that we are patently aware that our thought processes are not based in logic (as we understand it and apply it today, anyway).