Re: Re: POLITICS /Homosexuality/Psychology

[Guest guest]

<The appropriate analogy here would be the dissociation of eating from

nutrition. Obviously there's much more to eating than merely

supplying nutrients--very deep cultural, social, aesthetic, economic,

etc dimensions.

*This would be more applicably true of sexual behaviors, morals, and marraige --

very deep cultural, social, aesthetic, economic, etc. dimensions.

<Okay, so now I see you're in a totally different universe here.

Judging the field of psychology by clinical psychiatry is like

judging the field of nutritional biochemistry by the R & D department

of Mc's. To say nothing of the same page, we're not even in

the same book, or even the same section of the library.

*Judge the field by any aspect you want. Clincial psych is the better of them

all which is not saying much, I am sorry. And you are the one who pulled

" science " to substantiate that homosexuality was physiological and at birth. You

are correct, I don't waste my time in those sections of the library.

<Having studied cognitive science at the graduate level, I can assure

you your desiderata have been well met for many decades. For a good

representation of the field of psychology, you might enjoy perusing

Palmer's " Vision Science " (MIT Press). Let's talk methodology

and theoretical maturity after you get your head out of The

Mc Book of Psychology and into the real thing.

*Cognitive what? And in what school was that, science I doubt. I thought

Mc's was the place to find intellectual discourse on the subject.

You might try reading E O - most particularly, " Sociobiology " . In case

you are unfamiliar with the name, he is considered one of the top scientists in

the world. I'll share a piece of 's in the next post entitled the

" Biological Basis of Morality " , excerted from most recent book, Consilence. It

would be nice to have the level of discussion on this subject raised a few

levels so that relevant issues are actually addressed.

<Okay, you totally missed the ontological point about " brain events " --

So geologists don't study crystal lattices then? That's only done by

chemists? And if geologists are making a mess of the business, then

mountain ranges don't exist? But you're using the word " psychology "

to refer to something completely different than the academic

enterprise, so your remarks are moot.

*I am most particularly referring to the academic field of psychology which if

you failed to notice when you took your classes, was not included in the schools

of basic science.

<Uh, maybe because we're, like, NOT all the same??? Have you ever

compared your anatomy or sexuality to a male or a lesbian? I guess

us pro-gay types are just dwelling on irrelevant details of

biological variation; let's just pick one person (maybe an Ivy League

Christian White Male with blond hair and blue eyes) and make the

rules for everybody based on that. People aren't that different

anyway; should work for legal purposes.

*I suggest you try comparing your own anatomy to that of a another male,

homosexual or not. There are the same unless you suffer deformity.

You are not dwelling on irrelevant details, you are pulling details of

biological variation. You have simply not established that it exists. You

present it as an assumed truth and as yet, as shown nothing to substantiate your

position. A typical approach those who believe in the existance of God do.