True...but non-scientists need to talk about this stuff too.
On Nov 15, 2:09 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
> ...
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
