Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Interactive SFN Forums
 Polls, Votes and Surveys
 Kil's poll language
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Aerik
New Member

USA
18 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2006 :  16:35:37  Show Profile  Visit Aerik's Homepage Send Aerik a Private Message
[quote="Kil"]False Memory Syndrome would be a meaningful diagnosis that accurately explains lost and recovered memories of those who claim UFO abduction, satanic ritual Abuse, childhood sexual abuse and other traumatic events.[/quote]

I must refer to George Orwell here, in Politics and the English language. http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html .

Kil, either it is a good explaination, or it is not. A theory or a physical condition either works, or it does not work. It's validity is digital, not analogue. More, it is boolean, only true or false. It is not even Gaussian. You do not sound more sophisticated or scientific or objective me by putting your question in the passive rather than the active. In fact, False Memory Syndrome is a theory now, so putting it in the passive as a "would" implies that it has not been invented yet. This is at best disingenuous.

Tsk, tsk.

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2006 :  17:16:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Aerik

In fact, False Memory Syndrome is a theory now...
It may be a theory, but it's not yet a "meaningful diagnosis."
It is important to note that this syndrome is not listed in the DSM and has not been recognized by the APA or AMA as an official syndrome, as of yet.

- Questioning the Validity of False Memory Syndrome
Furthermore, a theory explains phenomena we see in the world. There are good theories and bad theories (think heliocentrism vs. geocentrism). Good and bad are both theories, hence the need for the modifier, "accurately."

That being said, I agree that "would" is rather poor word choice. "Is" certainly isn't appropriate, of course, for the reasons above. How about "may?"

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13457 Posts

Posted - 05/11/2006 :  18:55:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
quote:
How about "may?"


I'm cool with “may.” As for FMS being a theory, it is a theory only in the most casual use of that word.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000