One CFS?
- Thread starter Stretched
- Start date
Well, sort of - yes. In my Hons. thesis. But it certainly should be studied at a much more rigorous level.
It has implications in all sorts of important areas, such as bullying.
I had wanted to attempt to do that as a PhD, following on from my thesis.
This is a big problem in all psychological research. They pluck theories out of thin air, rather than study the basic biology on which to base the theory, so they're unaware they should have more than two tails in any hypothesis - they are also unaware of most confounding variables.
It has implications in all sorts of important areas, such as bullying.
I had wanted to attempt to do that as a PhD, following on from my thesis.
This is a big problem in all psychological research. They pluck theories out of thin air, rather than study the basic biology on which to base the theory, so they're unaware they should have more than two tails in any hypothesis - they are also unaware of most confounding variables.
... Well perhaps it has, in torture/concentration camps by a zealous psychiatrist I guess
Stretched
Senior Member
- Messages
- 712
- Location
- U.S. Atlanta
<<If something is not A, then it must be something other than A, let us call that B. This rests on multiple logical flaws. First, why not C, or D, or E or .... Second, what if we are wrong about not A?>>
If the 'psychogenic premise' and van Holst references (not read, yet) are deducing
social types because no organic cause can be shown, which I suspect, then I demure from a similar response to the more rigorous analysis of my casual premise by the proffered formal logic.
I appreciate your pedagogy but I think it's too pedantic for a casual premise, based on
Historical observation that does not negate ALL other possibilities, though agreeably, singularly unprovable (for now). (I may be 'the blind man and you wear a white hat'... .)
IAE, I would rather be lucky than good... and connect the stress dots to C, D, and E. ,-)
If the 'psychogenic premise' and van Holst references (not read, yet) are deducing
social types because no organic cause can be shown, which I suspect, then I demure from a similar response to the more rigorous analysis of my casual premise by the proffered formal logic.
I appreciate your pedagogy but I think it's too pedantic for a casual premise, based on
Historical observation that does not negate ALL other possibilities, though agreeably, singularly unprovable (for now). (I may be 'the blind man and you wear a white hat'... .)
IAE, I would rather be lucky than good... and connect the stress dots to C, D, and E. ,-)
alex3619
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,810
- Location
- Logan, Queensland, Australia
Stretched , we are all the blind philosophers trying to describe the elephant. Nobody is yet sure where the solution will be, but afterwards we will all be saying it was so obvious. My concern with stress as an explanation is that its so broad, so vague, that it generates massive methodological problems. I still think that a stress model could be developed, but having been involved in modelling CFS for a decade and a half, I am fairly sure it will be a major undertaking of many years, by which time the science will have evolved even further.