And the particular world view of each of those scientists shapes a great deal the kind of questions that are formed in those industrious minds.
Liz -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason (Memphis) Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2008 2:03 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology Scientists ask questions--a lot of questions as scientists. Scientists (and people) ask questions--a lot of other questions--while not working as scientists, lawyers, janitors, etc. On Nov 14, 8:50 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Certain assumptions we make about the universe (our own and the big one) can > determine what questions we ask. Philosophy helps to uncover new ways to > look at our world and our existence or the existence of other creatures. We > ask new questions as we explore possibilities, even if those possibilities > seem improbable. > > Liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liz > Purkrabek > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology > > 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
