Explain this SERENDIPITY and these COINCIDENCES?

[Jazz]

"John H." <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
news:3f1cb5b6 at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
> --
> johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
>
> remove YYY in reply
> "Jazz" <jazz1002 at charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vhp9p726n0lcce at corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "John H." <john at faraway.com> wrote in message
> > news:3f1b70bc at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > johnYYYcoe at tpg.com.au
> > >
> > > remove YYY in reply
> > > "The_Sage" <theeSage at azrmci.net> wrote in message
> > > news:9a8mhv8981llhcvrljint4654e9hs8c891 at 4ax.com...
> > > > >Reply to article by: "John H." <john at faraway.com>
> > > > >Date written: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 23:25:42 +1000
> > > > >MsgID:<3f1a97ee at dnews.tpgi.com.au>
> > > >
> > > > >'Co-incidence' is an appellation, not an explanation.
> > > >
> > > > That is exactly why coincidences are very important to psychologists
> > > > since the reason for the appellation tells us more about the
> > > > psychology of humans than it ever would about physically real
reality.
> > >
> > > Imagine what would have happened if Fleming noted the way the bacteria
> > were
> > > killed and let it go at that. He had no logical explanation for this
and
> > > wrote up his results in 1928. It was until 1937 that Florey paid
> > particular
> > > attention to this Fleming's little read paper that pencillin came into
> the
> > > world. In medicine particularly, logic often follows the application
of
> a
> > > treatment (psychiatric drugs are a very good example in this regard -
it
> > has
> > > taken decades to begin to appreciate why these are efficacious and to
> this
> > > day no-one claims with complete certainty why anti depressants work).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > From a subjective point of view, synchronicities are paranormal or
> > > > magical and therefore not in the realm of science, especially since
> > > > there is not one valid, properly documented and publicized case of
> > > > someone writing down a dream or foreknowledge of an event way in
> > > > advance of the event, and then having the event occur just as the
> > > > dream or foreknowledge predicted it would. All we ever have are
after
> > > > the fact storytales where we have to take somebody at their word
that
> > > > it happened. Jung was no exception to this. But what is most
> > > > significant about synchronicities isn't that they don't exist
outside
> > > > of our imagination, but that so many people want to pretend they
exist
> > > > and want to pretend that they are 'special' enough to have a few
here
> > > > and there. The reason for people wanting this tells us alot about
the
> > > > psychology of humans.
> > >
> > > Psychology is replete with after the fact stories of human behaviour
and
> > is
> > > lousy at predicting the behaviour of individuals.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not too lousy at all if BF's techniques were used!
> > Tis all the touchy-feely techniques
> > Which have been rather lousy predictive models.
> >
> > Do not the laws of physics require
> > A bit of destruction with measurement?
> > Without measurement of man's being,
> > How can one predict his behaviour?
>
> Granted, unfortunately BF is largely ignored now. That's my point though,
> even in science practitioners get carried away by fads and trends. It
would
> be great to see psychology become more grounded and that is slowly
> happening, possibly because of new techniques which allow much greater
> degrees of precision and penetration into the biological affects of a, b,
or
> c. It will be a very long road and we have only just started. Ironically
> Freud's 1895 work < Project for a Scientific Psychology> clearly outlined
> the need for a biological approach to understanding human behaviour.
Freud,
> however, knew the tools weren't available at his time. Now we have some of
> those tools. So take heart, BF may rise yet again.

Religion shall trash the tools as they become available.