On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists.
Jason this is a quick answer, since I am waiting to judge a debate that will start soon. Science or natural science, which was once called natural philosophy, is now and always has been a branch of epistemology. Philosophers, scientists and regular folks like us have always debated and determined what is good science for a in a particular subject area. The example you quoted above with the tree is a poor analogy. People use words like goal, anger and so forth and these words ca be investigated and modeled. Cognitive scientist make and test models of minds using communication theory. Communication theory (aka cybernetics) is an empirical science. Computer scientists build and program machines that have behavior, so their research is empirical. It is no guarantee that the human mind works the same way even if they can produce aspects of human behavior. Until brain/mind research makes huge strides, cybernetic modeling is the best way to move forward. Neuroscientists will eventually look for structures that can perform like the models made by computer scientists and cognitive scientists. This is a common practice most forms of science. Physicists, for example look for particles that are needed to fill certain roles. Philosophers are now and have always been considered the final authority in deciding what is good science. Those philosophers are also usually scientists in the fields they consider. They now what they are talking about and offer clear arguments that persuade the lesser philosophers and scientists, or don't. You might benefit from getting out of the strict Skinner behavior box with you thinking about behavior more often. There is a lot more to the world and the world of scientific psychology than Skinner, though he and his disciples have been significant contributors On Nov 14, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, > > Newton (and others) had the same issue when arguing with "scientists" > of their time. For example, "scientists" could argue that oak wood > burned hotter than pinewood because oak wood possessed an angrier > personality (or the essences of the woods were different). Newton > changed the focus from (a) searches for and understanding of essences > (or personalities) of oak and pinewood to (b) differences in structure > and responses to environmental inputs, for example, the temperature > output differences (responses) of the two woods when set on fire. > > The second method bore more fruit and progress/understanding could be > more objectively measured verses relying on someone's subjective > opinion of progress. In "Science and Human Behavior (1953)," Skinner > suggested that behavior scientists apply a similar type of method to > studying animals including humans. Watson, Pavlov, etc also used > these types of methods as well as William James to a certain degree. > Objective psychology is the nearest (but not quite) equivalent to > Behavior Analysis. > > Jason > > On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists. At > > universities such as Stanford, the university accountants also > > criticize scientists for spending too much money on lab equipment. > > The accounting office often tells the scientists, "Why can't you > > scientists be more like the mathematicians? The mathematicians only > > ask for paper, pencils and waste baskets. Better yet, why can't you > > scientists be more like the philosophers? Philosophers ask us to buy > > paper and pencils and don't even want waste baskets." > > > Read any cognitive psychology journal and you will find "attitudes" > > and other psychic or mind constructs used as explanations for > > behavior. Are these ghosts in the organisms strawman arguments? > > Perhaps...but I doubt it. > > > Jason > > > On Nov 14, 9:55 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 14, 9:00 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > By the same token, cognitive psychologists argued that nobody can see > > > > (so to speak) how complex organic behavior could've evolved (all > > > > natural) via natural selection; therefore, there supposedly must be a > > > > psychic force or mind that CAUSED or HAD A HAND IN these behaviors. > > > > Behavior analysts argue that the more and more we understand how these > > > > organic structures work (the interaction between the all natural > > > > organic structure and the all natural environment), the less and less > > > > we will argue for psychic forces or reply on concepts such as the > > > > "mind" to explain behavior, which includes events that occur inside > > > > the organisim such as "thoughts," "emotions," etc. > > > > Jason your argument above appears to be of a straw man variety against > > > cognitive psychology. Would you please produce some evidence that a > > > significant number of influential cognitive psychologists believe or > > > argue what you are saying? If you are merely saying that cognitive > > > scientist say that evolutionary psychology, as it now stands has some > > > holes in it, then I agree. But I can’t find evidence that they are > > > against evolutionary biology in principle. However, if you would > > > supply some evidence of this sort I’ll be happy to read and evaluate > > > it. > > > > This article from a top academic source (Stanford University) and > > > others say that the concepts of cognitive psych, such as mind, are > > > essential to evolutionary psych. The link is first followed by the > > > first paragraph. These two fields are complementary (cognitive and > > > evolutionary psych). It does say that cognitive psychologists are > > > critical of evolutionary psych but they still draw hypothesis from it. > > > The article says that philosophers of science particularly > > > philosophers of biology, they see evolutionary biology as deeply > > > flawed. I have pasted a paragraph with their reasons after the first > > > paragraph. It has nothing to do with their use concepts such as > > > mind. > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/ > > > > Evolutionary Psychology > > > First published Fri Feb 8, 2008 > > > Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed > > > approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive > > > psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not > > > all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal > > > psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary > > > psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that > > > the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—products of natural > > > selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and > > > reproduce. To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology > > > we require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary > > > biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of > > > mind. Philosophers are interested in evolutionary psychology for a > > > number of reasons. For philosophers of science —mostly philosophers of > > > biology—evolutionary psychology provides a critical target. There is a > > > broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary > > > psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise. For philosophers of mind and > > > cognitive science evolutionary psychology has been a source of > > > empirical hypotheses about cognitive architecture and specific > > > components of that architecture. Philosophers of mind are also > > > critical of evolutionary psychology but their criticisms are not as > > > all-encompassing as those presented by philosophers of biology. > > > Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in > > > moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a > > > critical target. > > > > 4. Philosophy of biology vs. Evolutionary Psychology > > > Many philosophers have criticized evolutionary psychology. Most of > > > these critics are philosophers of biology who argue that the research > > > tradition suffers from an overly zealous form of adaptationism > > > (Griffiths 1996; Richardson 1996; Grantham and Nichols 1999; Lloyd > > > 1999; Richardson 2007), an untenable reductionism (Dupre 1999; Dupre > > > 2001), a “bad empirical bet” about modules (Sterelny 1995; Sterelny > > > and Griffiths 1999; Sterelny 2003), a fast and loose conception of > > > fitness (Lloyd 1999; Lloyd and Feldman 2002); and most of the above > > > and much more (Buller 2005) (Cf. Downes 2005).[6] All of these > > > philosophers share one version or other of Buller's view: “I am > > > unabashedly enthusiastic about efforts to apply evolutionary theory to > > > human psychology” (2005, x).[7] But if philosophers of biology are not > > > skeptical of the fundamental idea behind the project, as Buller's > > > quote indicates, what are they so critical of? What is at stake are > > > differing views about how to best characterize evolution and hence how > > > to generate evolutionary hypotheses and how to test evolutionary > > > hypotheses. For evolutionary psychologists, the most interesting > > > contribution that evolutionary theory makes is the explanation of > > > apparent design in nature or the explanation of the production of > > > complex organs by appeal to natural selection. Evolutionary > > > psychologists generate evolutionary hypotheses by first finding > > > apparent design in the world, say in our psychological make up, and > > > then presenting a selective scenario that would have led to the > > > production of the trait that exhibits apparent design. The hypotheses > > > evolutionary psychologists generate, given that they are usually > > > hypotheses about our psychological capacities, are tested by standard > > > psychological methods. Philosophers of biology challenge evolutionary > > > psychologists on both of these points. I introduce a few examples of > > > criticisms in each of these two areas below and then look at some > > > responses to philosophical criticisms of evolutionary psychology > > > > On Nov 14, 9:00 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I would also add..... > > > > > In Intelligent Design, IDer argue that nobody can see (so to speak) > > > > how a complex organic structure evolved via natural selection; > > > > therefore, there supposedly must be a designer that CAUSED or HAD A > > > > HAND IN these organic structures. Scientists argue that the more and > > > > more we understand how these organic structures evolved, the less and > > > > less we will argue for a designer. > > > > > By the same token, cognitive psychologists argued that nobody can see > > > > (so to speak) how complex organic behavior could've evolved (all > > > > natural) via natural selection; therefore, there supposedly must be a > > > > psychic force or mind that CAUSED or HAD A HAND IN these behaviors. > > > > Behavior analysts argue that the more and more we understand how these > > > > organic structures work (the interaction between the all natural > > > > organic structure and the all natural environment), the less and less > > > > we will argue for psychic forces or reply on concepts such as the > > > > "mind" to explain behavior, which includes events that occur inside > > > > the organisim such as "thoughts," "emotions," etc. > > > > > On Nov 13, 10:50 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 13, 10:02 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Parallel the arguments of cognitive psychologists (if you have some > > > > > > familiarity with cognitive psychology) with the arguments for > > > > > > intelligent design. > > > > > > If I understand this at all, it is a very intersting argument to make. > > > > > I think you are saying that some people > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
