Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the
tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How
do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my
error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we
understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of
quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the
notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.
As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and
perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical
thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe,
specifically.
Carl
On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in
the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will
digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have
things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find
one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to
explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that
particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he
thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.
Eric
P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take
this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a
cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several
hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance,
blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would
love to know the sense in which it is not.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, *Carl Tollander <c...@plektyx.com>* wrote:
OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
Where did those criteria come from?
If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were
grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given
all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be
snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.
All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,
somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the
best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly
understood context, and makes a leap.
C
On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
> replaced phrenology, etc
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
> waiting to be replaced?
>
> -J.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
