Very Interesting, Don.

• Responses to First Learning about Affect Theory by Jim Duffy a.k.a. J.C.D., 2/28/97
  • Creative Stupidity by Don Nathanson, 3/1/97
    
    

Your welcoming is most welcomed; thank you Don. The term "creative stupidity" is one I like very much and one that I expect to fumble with, for I know so well my own scripts to not be stupid. As a would-be philosopher of science, however, I keep reminding myself that the ethical scientist maximizes the risks of being found mistaken. For disconfirming evidennce, so long as it is reliable and relevant, carries greater logical weight than confirming evidence. But when confirming evidence leads directly to a conclusion that has no rival as simple or as comprehensive, then we are as close to a true conclusion as we are going to get. So far, I have found nothing as comprehensively explanatory nor as conceptually simple as Affect Theory. (The fundamental principles are simple--but not easy to first accept, of course. And the extensions and applications of Affect Theory can become complex.) And when a theory in psychology also leads to compassionate, nonaccusatory, and validating methods of therapeutic intervention, it has the additional advantage of confomring to sound principles to guide humankind toward ethical conduct. Yes, Tomkins and several other theorists whom I greatly admire, are the Einsteins of psychological science. And I thank you, Don, and you associates for woking with so much dedication in making Tomkins' work accessible. Jim Duffy

.... "I try to learn from others' mistakes because I won't have enough time in my life to make them all myself."

No Replies