But a philosopher, through questioning and re categorizing human experience, determines the kind of big questions we ask like "What does it mean to be a human being?" Science then asks many specific questions based on answers to philosophical concerns. I think it would be a mistake to discount the importance of philosophy to the scientific process.
Even HOW we conduct scientific experiments may be determined through the questions we ask ourselves about the nature of our "universe." Questions arise as to the ethical treatment of animals in experimentation or even the treatment of our fellow humans. Do we use the scientific method in determining if a chimpanzee in a laboratory deserves to be free of undue suffering? I suppose we do so if we measure physical responses indicative of pain or distress, but at the core of the question "Should we be inducing pain and suffering on another arguably conscious creature for our benefit?" is not one that seems to be answered through "pure science." Are there complicated, mechanical workings, and hormones and chemicals interacting in an incredibly complicated way that, when combined with the billions of moment to moment life experiences, cause me to ask questions about how nice I need to be to monkeys? I don't really doubt it. But the process of combining those billions upon billions of life experiences into a fast and fluid vision for what is and maybe what should be, well, that's philosophy, and science needs it like a dog needs a master. That may change someday if we discover the mechanism behind every thought we think or action we take, but something tells me that unless we suddenly all become seriously autistic in order to independently hold so many individual pieces of information, we will continue to use this quasi mysterious tool called philosophy coupled with intuition as a compass for scientific discovery. Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason (Memphis) Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:40 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology Liz and Michael, "There is a lot more to the world and the world of scientific psychology than Skinner..." That is exactly right and exactly what Skinner advocated. Skinner doesn't even exist anymore. What behaviorists (including Skinner) advocated was a study of human behavior using science. Even Skinner used words such anger and so forth in his writings; however, he was referring to internal events (natural phenomenon) that behavioral scientists don't understand yet-- not some mystical aspect of animals called emotion. Michael, you wrote, "Philosophers are now and have always been considered the final authority in deciding what is good science." That is backwards and utterly wrong. Philosophers are most definitely not the final authority of good science. Also, other scientists have judged good science in the past especially the recent past. Events in nature are ultimately the final authority of good science, confirmed by observation and experiments in loose natural and controlled experimental settings. Scientists are much better judges of determining whether these experiments are important in unraveling natural events than philosophers. There are few philosophers who judge whether a chemical, physics, behavioral, or other experiment yields good results and was conducted well. Most of the writers and reviewers in science journals are scientists. Jason On Nov 14, 4:31 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "There is a lot more to the world and the world of > scientific psychology than Skinner..." > > In my uneducated opinion, I would have to agree. And by making this > statement, I am not proposing that any observations made by other current or > future disciplines need be supernatural in nature. Just thought I'd make > that clear before I get the "What else is there?" bit. :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Isparklaria > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 4:18 PM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
