Originally Posted by Michael_C
Well, not to get too far afield here, but do you honestly think there was not a point in history in which leeching was also not a course of study at all major institutions? Or astrology? If acceptance is our test of validity, the historical record demands a need for skepticism, to say the least.
This is an 'expert' that takes homeopathy seriously. I realize that with pseudoscience we are on shaky ground, since it provides so many people comfort and entertainment, but if you are making a statement that this expert should be taken seriously because of her title - that's a little odd.
Why would anyone care to review the full studies of a quack? I wouldn't delve into the papers of a doctor of Tarot Readings either, although admittedly it might be my loss not to do so. There just is not enough time to devote our energy into such pursuits. By all means, if spending hours poring over the studies of someone professing the import of aromatherapy and homeopathy makes emotional sense to you, do it - but don't expect others to be required to follow.
There is no hypocrisy in such an attitude. Once again, if the master Astrologist (who has studied around the world, published papers, and has a Doctorate from Astrology University) has published that all people - whether they know it or not - are susceptible to the wiles of astral vapors - and they have papers and books behind them - there is nothing hypocritical in knowing such practice is junk in the first place, so all expositions are likewise worthless. Again, I might be missing some bit of enlightenment in the process, but I will take my chances.
And if you think that being well presented, polite, engaging and funny is all worth as much as a spritz of cologne - if you think that is just a theory - well, to each their own, I guess. But I'll take a woman who is funny, bright, great to talk to and has a great smile without noticing whether or not she was wearing fragrance. Of course that is a false dichotomy (imagine what a knockout the person with all of those things and a bottle of perfume would be!). But that's the point - your article reinforces that false dichotomy. Junk, and certainly not respectable or worth much consideration. As I said, meeting people is not rocket science... despite the 'expert' trying to claim it very well may be.
Yes , leeching , flat-earth theory, and many other inaccurate “scientific” concepts were accepted at one point in history. The point you failed to notice is that upon their initial acceptance there were no definitive scientific methods available at that time to conclusively test their validity. Later they were discovered to be factually invalid. The point being is that even someone with the smallest amount of intelligence can deem something that has been discovered to be completely and definitively false as “quackery” in hindsight.
This is why it’s ridiculous to compare the complete validity of Psychology with that of leeching or flat earth theory since it’s skeptics and critics haven’t even remotely been able to factually disprove it’s validity as a whole nor will they probably ever will, especially to the extent of the two theories mentioned above. Therefore it’s an extremely fallacious comparison, as is comparing it to astrology. When astrology is being taught at the majority of academic institutions as a course of study then maybe your comparison will have a point.
Like I said, everything is clear in hind sight, I’m pretty sure if you existed and lived prior to the third century B.C. the concept of a “spherical earth” would have definitely seemed like quackery to you as well since there was a lack of adequately accustomed scientific methods to sufficiently examine the validity of this claim. You probably would’ve laughed at Heliocentrism as well.
As I stated in my previous post, the susceptible nature to untestable subjective interpretation of Psychology in SOME aspects makes certain theories inconclusive. Though inconclusiveness does not solely signify invalidity. That’s like someone calling the existence of God “quackery” since the credibility of such a claim is inconclusive.
I don’t expect anyone to be “required” to delve into Dr. Herz’s research nor accept the validity of it in it’s entirety ( I certainly haven’t). Though if you’re going to conveniently generalize it as “quackery” in such a definitive tone of certainty ESPECIALLY when you’re trying to basically offer your own contrasting but confident opinion on the same subject which by default means you’re doing the exact same thing as her ( just without the research) then yes, I’m going to need you “delve” into the research and directly engage it before you attempt to conclusively write it off as inaccurate. That in itself would be the credible thing to do. Otherwise from an objective standpoint, your own opinion is even more “quackery” than hers.
If you STILL haven’t understood the point I’m trying to make, then let me simplify it for you. It’s not what side of the fence you're on in this argument nor your opinion or stance you’re taking on the matter that I’m criticizing. It’s how you’re taking it and how you’re discrediting the opposing argument.
When I read the article and some of her research I said “ You know what ??? I don’t completely agree with this….. YET….. it doesn’t seem to automatically sell me, BUT this woman has done substantial research and has been working on this for decades so there really is no way for me to reasonably discredit her work without either directly engaging it to examine it for inaccurate methods or fallacious premises or doing the same level of comprehensive research myself “. Isn’t that the sensible , rational , logical and ultimately more credible method of discrediting something you don’t agree with ?? ESPECIALLY when you’re trying give your own opinion on the matter ??
I also find it extremely ironic that you’re trying to present an opinion on what fosters attraction strictly from your own personal experience of what attracts YOU and apply it to everyone else when I think almost everyone in here can agree that what attracts individuals varies greatly within a large group. We all know someone who is mostly attracted off of looks, someone who is mostly attracted off of personality and someone who is mostly attracted off of stability (money). That’s why it’s ironic that someone who is offering a theory of attraction strictly from mostly their own perspective of what attracts solely them is discrediting someone who objectively researched and examined what attracted OTHERS through a large sample group.
Like I said, I’m not even really taking a solid stance on this argument of scent and attraction , I’m just finding it hilarious that you’re so easily discrediting someone (Dr. Herz) who is essentially doing the exact same thing you’re attempting to do in offering such a confident and definitive opinion on the subject when she’s the one who actually did formalized research, and by research I don’t mean sitting behind a computer screen theorizing or reading tarot cards. I’m talking consolidating and examining behavioral neuroscientific literature, constructing scientific experiments, testing large sample groups and executing field studies amongst many more things. If her conclusion is "quackery" then by default, everyone's opinion on the same subject in here is even less credible "quackery" because we're all essentially doing the same thing.