Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Can you be trusted to know your own experiences?

Dr.Ralf Hood,

The Mysticism scale (aka "M scale") invented by Dr Ralph Hood (Psychology, U Tenn. Chattanooga) is a questionnaire designed to distinguish between mystical experience and other kinds of experiences. Having identified the experience it can then be studied more scientifically. This figures promenantly in my argumemts about the existence of God, although I never claimed it as direct proof.The artist known as "I'm Sceptocal" (aka "Skepie") tries to argue against the M scale in many ways but seems to have an aversion to actually reading Hood. This post is in answer to comments he made on a post below.*

m-skeptical said...
So let's take a look at this. What does it tell us?

The first thing to note is that confirming the three-factor structure simply means that the factors chosen by Hood are correlated with the self-reported aspects of a psychological phenomenon that you call the "mystical experience".

I seem to detect an implication there that mystical experience is not real and the research can;t be trusted because it involves the respondents own ideas."self reported" I detect a tinge of shamein that phrase. But real social scientists (of which Hood is one) do not see it that way. Interviewing subjects is a major part of social science research.

Interviewing is a method of qualitative research (used by sociologists and other social scientists) in which the researcher asks open-ended questions orally. This research method is useful for collecting data that reveal the values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews of the population under study.Aug 15, 2019[1]
see Other documentation about the validity of interviews [2]

But that says less about the intrinsic nature of that phenomenon than about how the phenomenon is perceived by the subjects. OK, so there are commonalities in what some people think about the experience they had, and Hood has identified some of those.

There it is almost in the open, people can't be trusted to know what their experiences mean,"that says less about the intrinsic nature of that phenomenon than about how the phenomenon is perceived by the subjects." There is the "intrinsic nature of the phenomenon," and the experiences people have of it, which of course can't be trusted. Except  that in this case the phenomenon in question is the experiences  people have of the divine. So the whole point is what is experienced. But according to Skepie that's just misleading we don't need to know it.

The second thing I see is that there is some cultural difference noted in this study. Iranian Muslims apparently don't correlate as strongly on the phenomenology factors.

That's not what the source said. He's not quoting Hood, he's quoting a source I quoted becasue it says the M scale is validated. He implies it's not because there's a difference in answers between one population and another but he neglects to document the nature of that difference he asserts its about his argument,

A second study confirmed the presence of these three factors in not only another group of Americans (N = 188), but also in a sample of Iranian Muslims (N = 185). Relationships of the introvertive and extrovertive factors with the interpretation factor were essentially identical across these two cultures, but the Americans displayed a stronger association between the two phenomenology factors.[3]
Ioe(1) They are not talking about Hood's study but their own study:Wiley.

(2) They [Wiley] said as i just quoted Hood is validated,Less so with Iranians (maybe, it doesn't say that) but that does not mean Hood is invalidated even among Iranians. In the Trace I show that he is validated in every country where the M scale has been used. Including Iran.

(3)In the Trace of God I wrote a great deal about Hood's methodology and I documented that his work has been validated in every country in which it has been studied including Iran.[4] Sweden.India,Japan.Versions of the M scale exist for Hindu's. Mulsems. Bhuddists and secular.

The third thing is that this study is far from being comprehensive. It covers (mostly) religious people from two different cultures. It might be worthwhile to obtain a broader sampling of different cultures and religious backgrounds, including atheists.

U just dealt with that. It's used all over the world; But Just because Wiley's study is not international does not  make it noncompressive.

It could be the case that Hood's factors hold up more within certain religious/cultural groups than others. And if that's true, then that certainly amplifies the concern that we are talking more about people's subjective perceptions rather than the intrinsic aspects of the phenomenon.

Nothing you have quoted said anything about Hood's view failing. They [Wiley] weren't even talking about Hood's study but their own. They did not say no correlation in Iran, they said "less so
that does not mean none. I present evidence in the Trace... that shows Hood validated n India, Jpan, Iran and other countries.see fn 4

You can copy an abstract without knowing what its significance is. It doesn't make your case to simply say "I have a study to support my thesis" if you can't examine that study with a scientific eye and understand what it tells you and what it doesn't.

I wrote a book 354 pages, examoned 200 stidies. wrpte extensivelly of thier methodology andused social sience research methds gleaned froma compeltedd maor in sociology.But that is not what you mean by scoentific. You mean dogmaticly rejectivimg regardlesss of the data because it challenges your ideology, For you science = ideology

I have a book full of studies that you refuse to even look at.Quoting abstracts is  invalid practice. You keep ignoring the fact that it says It validates Hood. It does not say Iranians contract hood's theory, You want to male ;ole my quoting the abstracts slipshod but you quote nothing..




Notes

*"Mystical Experience More than Gut Feeling" 40 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11516215&postID=4157132950389087292&page=1&token=1655306310713



[1] "why do social sciemtists use interviews?" https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALiCzsaV8NkkEYgKLiLhb8NpQIpkcUWsCw:1655307134653&q=Why+do+social+scientists+use+interviews%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy8oTO46_4AhWrkGoFHZY7D_8Qzmd6BAg6EAU&biw=901&bih=410&dpr=1.5

Interviewing is a method of qualitative research (used by sociologists and other social scientists) in which the researcher asks open-ended questions orally. This research method is useful for collecting data that reveal the values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews of the population under study.Aug 15, 2019

[2]Zubin Austin "Qualitative Research: Getting Started," Nayional Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275140/

Qualitative research involves asking participants about their experiences of things that happen in their lives. It enables researchers to obtain insights into what it feels like to be another person and to understand the world as another experiences it.

Qualitative research was historically employed in fields such as sociology, history, and anthropology.2 Miles and Huberman2 said that qualitative data “are a source of well-grounded, rich descriptions and explanations of processes in identifiable local contexts. With qualitative data one can preserve chronological flow, see precisely which events lead to which consequences, and derive fruitful explanations.” Qualitative methods are concerned with how human behaviour can be explained, within the framework of the social structures in which that behaviour takes place.3 So, in the context of health care, and hospital pharmacy in particular, researchers can, for example, explore how patients feel about their care, about their medicines, or indeed about “being a patient”.
[3]Wiley,Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 691-705 (15 pages) Published By:

[4] Joseph Hinman,The Trace of God: Ratinal Warrant for Belief. Colorado Sprigs: Grand Viaduct. 2014.168.



25 comments:

im-skeptical said...

I seem to detect an implication there that mystical experience is not real and the research can;t be trusted because it involves the respondents own ideas."self reported" I detect a tinge of shamein that phrase.
- What you "detect" has nothing to do with reality. I certainly didn't say or imply anything about shame. I didn't say there's anything wrong with self reporting. It's just a simple fact that the data is self reported rather than being measured by some kind of instrument. But what you "detect" in my observation helps to illustrate the point that I'm getting at. It's your perception about what I'm saying. Your perception happens to be wrong. The point is that the things we perceive might be a true reflection of reality, or they might not. And that applies to mystical experience, too. When it comes to science, objective data is always preferred. I'm not saying it's wrong for Hood to collect subjective data. He's looking at it to find commonalities in the perceptions that people have. That's fine. But it would be a mistake to do as YOU have done, and accept the content of those perceptions as necessarily reflecting reality. That is something that none of your studies do. And with good reason.

This research method is useful for collecting data that reveal the values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews of the population under study [Hood]
- That agrees with what I said. Values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews reflect the mindset of the interviewee. If most of the people taking this survey are religious, it stands to reason that their mindset includes a belief in God.

There it is almost in the open, people can't be trusted to know what their experiences mean
- Objective information is always better than subjective. There's a good reason science is based on objective data.

He implies it's not because there's a difference in answers between one population and another but he neglects to document the nature of that difference he asserts its about his argument
- It isn't an argument. He's merely reporting the results of the study. If you want to understand why the difference exists, it requires further study. The reason I mentioned it is not to refute Hood, but to make it clear that the M scale does depend on how people answer those questions, and that could be affected by any number of factors, including cultural.

Nothing you have quoted said anything about Hood's view failing.
- Joe, you just don't get it. I'm not complaining about Hood, or taking issue with him, or any of the studies you are citing. My issue is with the way you are using these studies. You are making conclusions from them that are not scientifically justified.

I have a book full of studies that you refuse to even look at.Quoting abstracts is invalid practice. You keep ignoring the fact that it says It validates Hood. It does not say Iranians contract hood's theory, You want to male ;ole my quoting the abstracts slipshod but you quote nothing..
- I'm just trying to add a scientific perspective to your own decidedly unscientific appropriation of these studies. You keep ignoring what I've been telling you - and I have said this many times. It isn't the studies that I find at fault. It is your analysis of them.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

JoeBlogger im-skeptical said...
I seem to detect an implication there that mystical experience is not real and the research can;t be trusted because it involves the respondents own ideas."self reported" I detect a tinge of shame in that phrase.



- What you "detect" has nothing to do with reality. I certainly didn't say or imply anything about shame. I didn't say there's anything wrong with self reporting. It's just a simple fact that the data is self reported rather than being measured by some kind of instrument.

That would be irrelevant to discovering what designates mystical experience. But I can't help but think you need a gimmick because you can't understand social science, the subjective can't be scientific.



But what you "detect" in my observation helps to illustrate the point that I'm getting at. It's your perception about what I'm saying. Your perception happens to be wrong. The point is that the things we perceive might be a true reflection of reality, or they might not.

why can't you say it clearly? if you want to be understood.

And that applies to mystical experience, too. When it comes to science, objective data is always preferred.

the data is not subjective. you are being confessed by your dread of subjectivity. the subjects are subjective but the data is about what they experienced.


I'm not saying it's wrong for Hood to collect subjective data. He's looking at it to find commonalities in the perceptions that people have. That's fine. But it would be a mistake to do as YOU have done, and accept the content of those perceptions as necessarily reflecting reality. That is something that none of your studies do. And with good reason.

So stupid. you are so legalistic and afraid. He wants to know if stake is right about a common core of mystical experience. So he has to ask have you had this experience. atheist fear at max level. If you accept subjective then you will catch God disease.

This research method is useful for collecting data that reveal the values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews of the population under study [Hood]


- That agrees with what I said. Values, perspectives, experiences and worldviews reflect the mindset of the interviewee. If most of the people taking this survey are religious, it stands to reason that their mindset includes a belief in God.

so what? if he wants to know what makes people happy he has to ask happy people. subjective..You are scared to death you will learn God is real.

Joe:There it is almost in the open, people can't be trusted to know what their experiences mean


- Objective information is always better than subjective. There's a good reason science is based on objective data.

Depends upon what you want to know. You fear the subjective because you fear your emotions. WE can study subjectivity objectively but first we must know what we are studying. You have been brainwashed by scientism and redctionism, posotovism ect

Joe He implies it's not because there's a difference in answers between one population and another but he neglects to document the nature of that difference he asserts its about his argument

- It isn't an argument. He's merely reporting the results of the study. If you want to understand why the difference exists, it requires further study. The reason I mentioned it is not to refute Hood, but to make it clear that the M scale does depend on how people answer those questions, and that could be affected by any number of factors,

That was in relatiom to the Wiley study where he says there is a weaker crrolation to Iraniansin the phenomenological categry,you imterproated that to mean no correlation.
including cultural.

im-skeptical said...

That would be irrelevant to discovering what designates mystical experience. But I can't help but think you need a gimmick because you can't understand social science, the subjective can't be scientific.
- You still don't understand what I'm saying to you. Hood's data consists of the answers to questions. People report their subjective experiences, and what they say about it becomes objective data that can be used for study and analysis. Do you get it? We're talking about two different things, here. For scientific study, the objective data is the answers they provide on the questionnaire (as in 89% report feelings of a divine presence, for example). For you, it is the subjective content that forms the basis for your conclusions (as in the divine presence must be real, therefore the divine is real).

why can't you say it clearly? if you want to be understood.
- I'm sorry you didn't understand that. Let me give an example to explain what I'm talking about. Let's say a person tell his doctor he feels bugs crawling on his skin. The doctor examines him and finds no bugs. The person's feeling is subjective. The bugs exists in his mind, but not necessarily in reality. But he insists - "Those bugs are there. I can feel them". The doctor doesn't doubt that the patient has these feelings. He writes in the medical record, "Patient reports feeling of bugs on his skin." The medical record is objective information. It provides the fact of what the patient was feeling, despite the fact that the bugs don't actually exist.

the data is not subjective. you are being confessed by your dread of subjectivity. the subjects are subjective but the data is about what they experienced.
- This is what I have said all along. But you are confused, because you want to treat those feelings of "the divine" as objectively true. That's what your whole analysis boils down to.

So stupid. you are so legalistic and afraid. He wants to know if stake is right about a common core of mystical experience. So he has to ask have you had this experience.
- I agree completely with that. What I disagree with is how you use the answers to those questions.

atheist fear at max level. If you accept subjective then you will catch God disease.
- I wouldn't accept that the patient really has bugs crawling on his skin, when examination of the patient tells me otherwise. I need objective evidence to believe in God.

You are scared to death you will learn God is real.
- I'm not afraid of truth. Just show me the objective evidence.

Depends upon what you want to know. You fear the subjective because you fear your emotions. WE can study subjectivity objectively but first we must know what we are studying. You have been brainwashed by scientism and redctionism, posotovism ect
- I want to know the truth. Your feelings only tell you what you already believe, or what you want to believe.

That was in relatiom to the Wiley study where he says there is a weaker crrolation to Iraniansin the phenomenological categry,you imterproated that to mean no correlation.
- I didn't say there is no correlation. I said there is a difference in the correlation. And the difference appears to be cultural.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You still don't understand what I'm saying to you. Hood's data consists of the answers to questions. People report their subjective experiences, and what they say about it becomes objective data that can be used for study and analysis. Do you get it? We're talking about two different things, here.

No that is what I said. I made that argumemt, you don't really believe. You think people's experiences will always contaminate he data.


For scientific study, the objective data is the answers they provide on the questionnaire (as in 89% report feelings of a divine presence, for example). For you, it is the subjective content that forms the basis for your conclusions (as in the divine presence must be real, therefore the divine is real).

That is not how I look at it As recently as yesterday I said I do not argue that M scale proves God. the God arguments draw upon that data bit its not proof.The God argumemt i not science, it's in another category.

im-skeptical said...

That is not how I look at it As recently as yesterday I said I do not argue that M scale proves God.
- You make the claim indirectly. This is part of your argument (quoted exactly in your own words):
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
That is not how I look at it As recently as yesterday I said I do not argue that M scale proves God.

- You make the claim indirectly. This is part of your argument (quoted exactly in your own words):
(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine
(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine
(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.
11:36 AM

there's a crucial distinction there between extrapolating from data and claiming the data was collected to prove my point. You are also ignoring the fact that even head in I am not claiming to prove God. The conclusion I draw is "this is good reason to think X" not "this absolutely proves X."

im-skeptical said...

You're playing games with words. You didn't say "then there is good reason to think divine is real". Your statement "then the divine must be real" is more like "this absolutely proves X" than "this is good reason to think X."

JAB128 said...

I love how Skeppy wants objective evidence. Then, when some is presented, he will just move the goal post like all atheists do.

im-skeptical said...

Feelings are not objective evidence.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you are afraid of feelings. of course they could be objective evidence if you are studying feelings. If you study feeing's what else would you look at?

You are scared to death: feelings are key to knowing God.

im-skeptical said...

Sorry, Joe, but deep down inside, I think you know the truth, and you are afraid of it. Objective evidence reveals that God is a fantasy, and you have to rely on lame excuses concocted to convince yourself that real evidence doesn't tell the truth. Because when the fairy tale is revealed as a lie, then you have to grow up face the fact that you don't get to live forever.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Sorry, Joe, but deep down inside, I think you know the truth, and you are afraid of it. Objective evidence reveals that God is a fantasy,

You fear God you have to pretend he's not real. What evidence proves God is not real? tell me the evidence. Documentation,


and you have to rely on lame excuses concocted to convince yourself that real evidence doesn't tell the truth.

I have 200 studies that pre religious experience is real, good for and is caused something beyond our understanding. You have nothing. No evidence says God is not real. That is entirely athyeist speak, meaning you pretend science is proof against God. It's not. Science is neutral in relation to belief.



Because when the fairy tale is revealed as a lie, then you have to grow up face the fact that you don't get to live forever.


show me the big revelations show me something besides your flapping gums.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I have 200 studies backimg my RE arguments you have nothing so far.

im-skeptical said...

have 200 studies backimg my RE arguments you have nothing so far.
- You haven't listened to a word I said. You have 200 studies that don't say what you claim. You are jumping to conclusions that are not justified. Why do you think you're the only one who has come to this conclusion? Why do you think the entire worldwide scientific community has failed to see what you see? And why do you think after your book has been published that the whole world isn't marveling at the astonishing revelation and lauding your work? I'll tell you why: it's unscientific bullshit.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

have 200 studies backimg my RE arguments you have nothing so far.

- You haven't listened to a word I said. You have 200 studies that don't say what you claim.

(1) You have nit read any if them and I have *(2)In four years of college debate I had learn study methodology and be ale to argue it at the drop of a hat, did you do college debate? (3) I;ve talked to several of the study authors and Dr Hood who invested the M scaled is the top researcher in the field guided my research, you know nothing about it.


You are jumping to conclusions that are not justified. Why do you think you're the only one who has come to this conclusion? Why do you think the entire worldwide scientific community has failed to see what you see?


The scientific community agrees with me, they know Hood is the best researcher and that M scale is fine. I don't think that has anything to do with your real meaning, you think one who believes in God can't be scientific, for scientific = ATHEISTIC. That is nt scientific it's ideological.


And why do you think after your book has been published that the whole world isn't marveling at the astonishing revelation and lauding your work? I'll tell you why: it's unscientific bullshit.

You really are quite stupid. You know must people don't know shit about science Most people don't give a shit about science expect using gadgets and stuff but they don't
care. I bet you feel good knowing that you are one of those rare cats who knows science you are in the elite; hell 3% are attest you have to dig elitism. But when it suit you you try to pretend you are in the majority, 90% of people believe in God so if that is your standard you loose.

4:06 PM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

atheists are not the intellectual elate. the elite is the intellectual Christians, Obvious there are only about 3 of us.

im-skeptical said...

Joe, I have explained all of this to you before. You just don't listen. You have studies that show a correlation between mystical experience and well-being. OK, but one thing you ignore is that the same correlation exists with non-religious peak experiences. This is well documented in psychology. So what does this say about these experiences being divine or having divine causation? If you look at research in the broader field of psychology (not just psychology of religion), you will find that this topic has been studied, and there are explanations for the correlation that have nothing to do with God (or "the divine").

And let's not forget the fact that these experiences (including deeply religious experiences) can be produced artificially. What does that say about divine causation?

If you want to do science, then you can't start your research with the answer in mind and work toward that goal. That's called pseudo-science. You have to have an open mind, and go where the facts lead you. If you want to do science, then you have to look at all the relevant facts, not just the ones that you cherry-pick to make your case. Otherwise, you are bound to head down the wrong path.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
Joe, I have explained all of this to you before. You just don't listen. You have studies that show a correlation between mystical experience and well-being. OK, but one thing you ignore is that the same correlation exists with non-religious peak experiences.

That does not disprove any argumemt I make. It is quite irrelevant. We have a mechanism that's put there so we can sense Like eye sight it's stomper in so,e than in others. I don't think the non God related mystical experience is studied as much so I don't know the data for that. I don't think it matters. For one things its even more rare.


This is well documented in psychology. So what does this say about these experiences being divine or having divine causation?

Nothing. What are you trying to claim is well documented? show me the docs.


If you look at research in the broader field of psychology (not just psychology of religion), you will find that this topic has been studied, and there are explanations for the correlation that have nothing to do with God (or "the divine").

show me that research. You really think I know nothing about that as though one can study the topic and remain sequestered form the major studies. You are so stupid to always assume your opponents mover know anything, if you think you have a study that disproves my studies let's see it?

And let's not forget the fact that these experiences (including deeply religious experiences) can be produced artificially. What does that say about divine causation?

N they can't be. That's a rookey mistake. I understand why you Think that but it tells me you are not well read in the topic. I disproved that assertion in the Trace of God.

If you want to do science, then you can't start your research with the answer in mind and work toward that goal. That's called pseudo-science.

The reason you assume I did that is because you arearrogat, ignorant, and stupid. you can't fathom the idea that one could disagree with you and know anything. That is truly a stupid assumption.


You have to have an open mind, and go where the facts lead you. If you want to do science, then you have to look at all the relevant facts, not just the ones that you cherry-pick to make your case. Otherwise, you are bound to head down the wrong path.
7:09 AM

the child admnooshes the professor. Ralph Hood pronounced my work important and well done.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Skepie Your statement: "If you look at research in the broader field of psychology (not just psychology of religion), you will find that this topic has been studied, and there are explanations for the correlation that have nothing to do with God (or "the divine")."

I am waiting for the citations

im-skeptical said...

We have a mechanism that's put there so we can sense Like eye sight
- Yes. It's called a feeling. And it's not like eyesight. It's purely subjective. It's in your mind, but doesn't correspond to anything in the world.

I don't think the non God related mystical experience is studied as much so I don't know the data for that.
show me the docs.
show me that research.
it tells me you are not well read in the topic.
I am waiting for the citations

- Joe, you supposedly did research for your book. Why are you so unfamiliar with the literature? I have already pointed out numerous papers and articles to you, and you have ignored all of it. If you're writing a book, it's your job to do that research. You should know what's out there. But you don't.

This is the product of knowing your conclusion before you ever begin to look at the data. You only see the stuff that will lead to the conclusion you want to make. You ignore the rest. It's pseudo-science.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
We have a mechanism that's put there so we can sense Like eye sight
- Yes. It's called a feeling. And it's not like eyesight. It's purely subjective. It's in your mind, but doesn't correspond to anything in the world.

No mystical experience is not feelings alone. It's well proven to be a real set of things people experience that changes lives. There is a huge body of scientific work that supports this. It contradicts atheism even though it really doesn'[t require belief in God. you fear it. It's real and it's proven. It is not entirely subjective.

I don't think the non God related mystical experience is studied as much so I don't know the data for that.

You just said if I was as well read as you are I would know studies back it up. So show the studies? YOU SAID:"If you look at research in the broader field of psychology (not just psychology of religion), you will find that this topic has been studied, and there are explanations for the correlation that have nothing to do with God (or "the divine")." research that means studies So show me the studies.

ME: show me the docs.
show me that research.
it tells me you are not well read in the topic.
I am waiting for the citations



- Joe, you supposedly did research for your book. Why are you so unfamiliar with the literature? I have already pointed out numerous papers and articles to you, and you have ignored all of it. If you're writing a book, it's your job to do that research. You should know what's out there. But you don't.

No you asserted that BS so it's YOUR burden to prove it. Otherwise you have just another blow hard pronouncement that means nothing more than: "me not like God." It's because I am better read than you that I know you don't have such studies, they do not exist.

This is the product of knowing your conclusion before you ever begin to look at the data. You only see the stuff that will lead to the conclusion you want to make. You ignore the rest. It's pseudo-science.


You are making a dumb assumption about my book which you have never read. you are thinking he disagrees with me so he can't know anything. That's the only way you know how analyze things. Christians must be stood and if they knew any science they would not be christians. Your whole life and outlook are based upon begging the question

Again the major researcher said my stuff is good my book is important I do a good job.

im-skeptical said...

Again the major researcher said my stuff is good my book is important I do a good job.
- Sure. He said "Ya sure, kid. Sounds great." I'll tell you one thing, Joe. Your book has not, and will never be subjected to REAL peer review.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

He just plugged my book at a major conference in Canada. Ask him

im-skeptical said...

Some religious cultist is plugging your book at a conference that nobody ever heard of. In the scientific community, you have made no impact whatsoever. Zero. And you'll never get a reputed scientist to put his name on a public endorsement of your work in the scientific community, because endorsing pseudo-science would ruin his reputation.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

You are ridiculing Dr. Hood. Here is his bio put up by U Ten Chattanooga where he teaches.https://www.utc.edu/directory/dxm631-psychology-ralph-hood/dxm631
"Biography
Biographical sketch: Ralph W. Hood Jr, Professor of psychology and LeRoy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies & UT Alumni Association Distinguished Professor. He is former editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion currently co-editor of Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion and Editor-in Chief of Brill Research Perspectives in Religion and Psychology. He is a past president of division 36 of the American Psychological Association and a recipient of its William James award for his research in the psychology of religion."

the International journal for psychology of religion has an issue honoring Hood.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2021.1940531.

(1) What atheist publican has honored you with a specials issue, or what science mag declaimed you a great sconce thinker?

(2) you don't know what a conference he spoke of so you have no basis for saying you haven't heard of it.

(3) It is of no great consequence to me that no one sees me as a great scientific thinker because I'm a historian and not science guy.

Your little crusade to feel superior by running down the accomplishments of others, specially when you have none of your own, marks you as the kind of whining childish mountebank I know you to be.

Unless you can understand the distinction between ideas and personalities you can just stay away. Final warning.