Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Barry, Oct 18, 2017.
They probably aren't that scientific. Based on the tweets, it's a lot of enthusiastic liberal arts students who still believe everything they're told.
Connections, and I wouldn't be surprised if she's doing it for free. Some speakers might expect to have expenses paid, but she's on a campaign against ME patients, so she's probably seeking these conferences out personally instead of being contacted and invited to speak. I once made a comment about these clowns eventually being reduced to shouting on street corners, and I think Crawley's moving in that direction very briskly.
Crawley cannot be reasoned with, so her university should be. Perhaps a targeted and persistent campaign of our own is needed to make that happen. But after years or decades, I imagine she has embedded herself very well there, and made all of the necessary connections. Peter White must have done the same at QMUL for them to pay 250,000 pounds for their ridiculous defense of hiding PACE data.
Oh, Woolie, what a bloomer!
Intentionality is a philosophical concept and is defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs". The once obsolete term dates from medieval scholastic philosophy, but in more recent times it has been resurrected by Franz Brentano and adopted by Edmund Husserl. The earliest theory of intentionality is associated with St. Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God, and with his tenets distinguishing between objects that exist in the understanding and objects that exist in reality. (Wikipedia)
Intentionality has nothing to do with intention, though to make such a mistake puts the user in the same boat as the eminent philosopher Daniel Dennett. It is a perfect example of how philosophers believe they are word purists yet mangle language more than anyone else. 'Intentional' is an adjective derived from intent via the present day usage of intention, but intentionality derives from the obsolete term 'intention', (comparable to extension and in linguistics intension and extension, which are different again, so one has to distinguish intentionality from intensionality) meaning being directed towards something as in an arrow. One can say there is intent, or that there is an intentional aspect, but not intentionality, if one is meaning purpose.
Now hows about that for pedantry?
I take that response as a good sign. People are openly calling out her bullshit in real time.
I think you'd have been better off using the singular possessive "pedant's" and keeping the high ground to yourself. By using "pedants' " you unintentionally caused @Jonathan Edwards to infer that this was a group thing and to come and point out your bloomer. Or was that your purpose?
Whatever, as is traditional when two pedants meet, within in couple of exchanges it's all about semantics.
Have I just been out-pedanted?
Anonymisation and Re-identification is an interesting and quite active research area. But Crawley isn't adding to it my making baseless claims. If I remember correctly the information tribunal were not impressed by Anderson's claims that reidentification would be possible with the PACE data. Re-identification shouldn't involve already having good knowledge of the person or committing a crime such as trawling NHS databases.
I think this is quite a good article on the issues
Personally I don't see how people with a fluctuating condition could be identified from questionnaire scores. Even when combined with other data.
This isn't dated, but refers to the 2016 FOI ruling, so must be later than that.
Sorry,now read p2!
Uni of Bristol responded on 9 June 2017 re period from JUly 2015 to Jan 2017
Yes, following this lecture, for the first time, my contempt for Prof Crawley was tempered by just the faintest flicker of pity. It’s almost as though she knows she is surrounded and there is no hope of victory but rather than surrender she’s charging out, all guns blazing, in a desperate act of self-destruction.
As for “aping the behaviour she attributes in others”, this seems to be a common theme with PACE Club. As I suggested before on PR, it seems to be what psychologists refer to as “projection”:
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection ...
Then you're a better man than me. Someone that inflicts so much harm to a very vulnerable patient-group(me-patients), and out of those the most vulnerable off all, namely children, I have nothing but contempt for her. And I honestly can't wait to see herself dig an ever deeper hole.
It's fun using psychobabble against psychobabblers, but it's just that, psychobabble and fun. In my opinion freudian bollocks shouldn't be used to establish a flicker of pity for Esther Crawley.
I want the likes of Crawley and Wessely, etc, removed from power and held properly accountable as soon as possible, and the history books to accurately record what happened and who was guilty.
But nothing more. Once that happens then I have no further interest in wasting a single second of my life on them.
Be careful you don't repress anything and make yourself ill
Now available on Youtube
Separate names with a comma.