Originally posted by detachedindividual
Thanks for the reply...
Seems that you simply rehashed what you already stated (in this thread), and ignored my responses to the same.
The primary issue I have with your argument is - You blame "them" for having "no factual evidence" (none of "them" have access to the real facts, and...they don't live there)...but...your facts are legitimate...?
I am familiar with how the "expert witness game" is played. I am, likewise, familiar with how competitive Psychology professionals are...and how "different" their opinions and schools of thought can be.
They are like meteorologists (to me)... They might be right - They might be wrong... Got a lot of science to back them up... A lot of money invested into getting them as much scientific data as possible...to aid them in being "right" more often... But, it is still a toss-up, whether their interpretation/s of the data is (will be) correct, or not. (Not disparaging weather forecasters or psych-professionals.)
It could simply be that - there are a lot more factors that play-in to each "situation" that we don't even know about (yet)...or...that we are unable to measure (yet)...or...that there are simply too many factors to address (and remain profitable - which affects relevancy)...for them to be "right" more often than not...
How would you handle being "misdiagnosed" as "a witch" in Salem...?
Wouldn't much matter, would it?
You would probably just have to deal with hanging on a stake, while they lit the fire below your feet.