Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander mailto:c...@plektyx.com c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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.
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.commailto:c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
This all reminds me of story my physics prof told us as an introduction to rotating coordinate system. Basically, the British Navy thought they had the cannonball problem solved. That is until they sailed south of the equator, tried shooting, and quickly discovered they didn't really have the cannonball problem solved. ;-) Of course, that was several hundred years ago. Rich On 17 May 2012, at 13:23, John Kennison wrote: The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.commailto:c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Correction: This story seems to go back to the battle of the Falklands in WW1 between the British and German navies. And it's not clear if it's true. It's entertaining nonetheless. Rich On 17 May 2012, at 14:00, Richard Harris wrote: This all reminds me of story my physics prof told us as an introduction to rotating coordinate system. Basically, the British Navy thought they had the cannonball problem solved. That is until they sailed south of the equator, tried shooting, and quickly discovered they didn't really have the cannonball problem solved. ;-) Of course, that was several hundred years ago. Rich On 17 May 2012, at 13:23, John Kennison wrote: The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.commailto:c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Hi, Carl, Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction. Can Eric tell the difference? Can I tell the difference? Can Carl tell the difference? Is engineering the same as science? Is control the same as understanding? Jochem: Is it time for me to go back into exile? Nick PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit” From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology 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 mailto:c...@plektyx.com 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
I like this, John. But, admittedly, it is the falsificationist doctrine we were puzzling about a couple of weeks back on the Clark Kitchen List. Falsificationism might be correct if we understand it to be the psychological thesis that we continue to believe something until we are given powerful reasons to stop. But (channeling Peirce), the deductive/falsificationist model of science does not have the logical foundation granted it by our teachers in graduate school in the 60's. Nick -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of John Kennison Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 6:23 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Well, On Peirce's account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or solved) is like settled law. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn't. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn't come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that's what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.commailto:c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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,
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Many psychological theories have been disproven. Most of the disproven theories are long forgotten, which occasionally leads to their reappearance and a subsequent re-disproving. One problem in psychology is that many people are in denial about the range of things that have been disproven. For example, learning does not require a brain; intelligence is affected by genetics; men are better at some things and women are better at others; many human behaviors are best modeled as closed-loop systems; the state of gut bacteria is tremendously important in determining mood, often more so than external factors or anything you can measure about the brain; behavior is typically best predicted by a person's location, not by their personality; you could list over 20 disproven hypotheses regarding the moon illusion; you could list many disproven hypotheses regarding the cognitive factors that predict how long an infant will stare at a display; etc., etc., etc. Of course, any of these could be phrased in terms of 'proving' or 'disproving' depending on how you wanted to phrase the initial hypothesis, and some would prefer to say that 'support' or 'fair to support', etc. On Thu, May 17, 2012 08:23 AM, John Kennison jkenni...@clarku.edu wrote: The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got. N From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Eric, Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally. Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline. Re: Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of solved scientific questions is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse. C On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: Well, to make two more general claims then: 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming. 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a tech problem except in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it. Is there anything you think is a solved scientific question or do you think the category is incoherent? Eric On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander c...@plektyx.commailto:c...@plektyx.com wrote: 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Nick, my name is Jochen. I know 'Jochen Fromm' is hard to pronounce for an English speaking person. At least I share the same name (and fate, in this regard) as Erich Fromm, the famous social psychologist. I like psychology, and I enjoy the interdisciplinary discussions here. Without Eric and you, the topics would revolve mainly around technology and local issues of Santa Fe. Therefore it is nice that you are back, although you still can't remember by name correctly ;-) Jochen Sent from AndroidNicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:Hi, Carl, Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction. Can Eric tell the difference? Can I tell the difference? Can Carl tell the difference? Is engineering the same as science? Is control the same as understanding? Jochem: Is it time for me to go back into exile? Nick PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit” From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Jochen, I know very well what your name is. I just can’t type! Sorry. Nich Tompshon. PS: I pronounce it in my head, “ZHAW-ken”. Is that approximately correct? From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:09 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; c...@plektyx.com; 'ERIC P. CHARLES' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Nick, my name is Jochen. I know 'Jochen Fromm' is hard to pronounce for an English speaking person. At least I share the same name (and fate, in this regard) as Erich Fromm, the famous social psychologist. I like psychology, and I enjoy the interdisciplinary discussions here. Without Eric and you, the topics would revolve mainly around technology and local issues of Santa Fe. Therefore it is nice that you are back, although you still can't remember by name correctly ;-) Jochen Sent from Android Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Hi, Carl, Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction. Can Eric tell the difference? Can I tell the difference? Can Carl tell the difference? Is engineering the same as science? Is control the same as understanding? Jochem: Is it time for me to go back into exile? Nick PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit” From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16 PM To: ERIC P. CHARLES Cc: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology 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 mailto:c...@plektyx.com 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level. *-- Russ* On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote: Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, *Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com*wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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 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] Green Apple?
iClarified - Apple News - Apple Announces Its Data Center Will Be Powered Entirely By Renewable Energy http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=22034 -- Owen 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Russ, This is, of course, the pragmatic[ist] understanding of solved. Everybody has quit looking for a better solution. Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:20 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level. -- Russ On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote: Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Sorry, I've totally lost track, if in fact I ever understood what this new thought exercise was. What's the point? What's the goal? What's the deliverable? Is there any more depth to this new discussion aside from considering how people talk about discussing how actual scientific achievement is accomplished? Unfortunately, I suspect the goal *is* to discuss the discourse about talking about how work is actually done. I may be wrong, though. -Doug On May 17, 2012 7:21 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level. *-- Russ* On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote: Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, *Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com*wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Doug, I think it's a form of play. Possibly a form that is not your cup of tea. Intellectual play and science are alike, in my world, because both explore contradictions in our ways of thinking of things. Oxymorons, like psychological science or thinking machine or conscious animal. Resolving these contradictions usually involves some reconstructive work on both sides of a conceptual seam that we may at first have been unaware of. Hard to know when this sort of play metamorphoses into work or when attempts at systematic work devolve into play. But you can ignore us. Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 9:59 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; russ.abb...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology Sorry, I've totally lost track, if in fact I ever understood what this new thought exercise was. What's the point? What's the goal? What's the deliverable? Is there any more depth to this new discussion aside from considering how people talk about discussing how actual scientific achievement is accomplished? Unfortunately, I suspect the goal *is* to discuss the discourse about talking about how work is actually done. I may be wrong, though. -Doug On May 17, 2012 7:21 PM, Russ Abbott russ.abb...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level. -- Russ On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote: Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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 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
Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
Were you dismissing the idea of looking at the literature by saying that doing so is pragmatic[ist]? I'm missing your point. *-- Russ * On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Russ, ** ** This is, of course, the pragmatic[ist] understanding of “solved.” Everybody has quit looking for a better solution. ** ** Nick ** ** *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Russ Abbott *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:20 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology ** ** Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level. *-- Russ* ** ** On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES e...@psu.edu wrote: Arlo, I agree completely about the process point. I was a bit less certain when you said, something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following, something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study Eric On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, *Arlo Barnes arlo.bar...@gmail.com*wrote: It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time. I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study. -Arlo James Barnes. 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 ** ** 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
