[escepticos] Re: plagio lunar derivado en "Lavado de Cerebros"

[Carlos Domínguez <dominscience@...>]

Hola José María y contertulios participantes de este
intercambio:
En mi mensaje anterior cité que Margaret Singer (la
defensora más férrea de las "técnicas de lavado de
cerebro")habia sido desacreditada por la A.P.A.
(Asociación Americana de Psicología),pero no recordaba
la referencia .
Finalmente la hallé .Es el mensaje 125153 de 
alt.religion.scientology que reproduzco abajo.Vean que
un juez señala que ni la APA ni la ASA (Asociación
sociológica americana)ha apoyado las técnicas de
control mental de Singer y que NO son aceptadas
generalmente por la comunidad científica.
Es decir, que al revés de lo que sostiene nuestro
compañero -y el Dr. Navarro también- afirmar que las
técnicas de lavado existen NO es una afirmación
científica, sino una OPINION . 
Espero que con ello no se sospeche  que la APA
defiende "a las sectas".Simplemente desacredita a la
Singer y su idea de "técnicas de lavado de
cerebro",como no aceptables científicamente."In
general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and
evenhanded critical approach needed for APA
imprimatur."
saludos
carolus magnus

Lo transcribo completo:

>From milne en crl.com Thu Oct 26 20:13:59 EDT 1995
Article: 125153 of alt.religion.scientology
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Singer discredited -- repost

Margaret Singer has been comprehensively discredited.

Her credentials, however, have been rejected by her
own profession: The American Psychological Association
found her work to lack scientific merit. Several
courts have forbidden Singer to testify as an "expert
witness" because, as one court stated, "her coercive
persuasion theory did not represent a meaningful
scientific concept." United States vs Steven Fishman

The APA formally dismissed Singer's ideas in the 1980s
after she and her AFF associates had formed a task
force within the APA on "deceptive and indirect
methods of persuasion and control". This task force
submitted its report to the Board of Social and
Ethical Responsibility for Psychology of the APA. 

The task force's report was rejected by the Board in
May of 1987. The APA stated that "In general, the
report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded
critical approach needed for APA imprimatur." The APA
Board, which consulted two independent experts in
arriving at their conclusion, warned the task force
members not to imply that the APA in any way supported
the positions they had put forward. 

Singer is an advisory board member of Cult Awareness
Network (CAN) and American Family Foundation (AFF),
both of which rely on her theories to cover their
attacks on new religions with a veneer of "science."
But the overwhelming majority of experts and scholars
have also found Singer's "brainwashing" ideas to be
wholly unscientific. They share the view of Professor
Harvey Cox, Professor of Divinity at Harvard
University, that "The term 'brainwashing' has no
respectable standing in scientific or psychiatric
circles, and is used almost entirely to describe a
process by which somebody has arrived at convictions
that I do not agree with." (John T. Biermans: The
Odyssey of New Religions Today). 

In 1990, U.S. District Court Judge D. Lowell Jensen in
US v. Fishman reviewed in detail the status of
Singer's ideas, including voluminous submissions on
her behalf. Judge Jensen then barred her from
testifying, concluding that her views were not
generally accepted within the scientific community
both as to merit and to methodology: "The evidence
before the court...shows that neither the APA
[American Psychological Association] nor the ASA
[American Sociological Association] has endorsed the
views of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe [a sociologist and
AFF director] on thought reform. The APA found that
Dr. Singer's report lacked scientific merit and that
studies supporting its findings lack methodological
rigor." 


Ahora podés usar Yahoo! Messenger desde tu celular. Aprendé cómo hacerlo en Yahoo! Móvil: http://ar.mobile.yahoo.com/sms.html