On 11 September 2008 Michael Britt wrote re "synchronicity" [snip]: > In all honesty, I don't think he came off looking too good and >I'm wondering if I did him a disservice by not pointing out to >the listeners that our (Western) way of thinking is based on >empiricism and that this mode of thought is different than the >tradition Jung came from. I have to admit though that the >philosophical underpinnings of Jung's thinking is >not my forte. We all want students to be critical thinkers, but >I also want them to appreciate different modes of thinking.
Michael Sylvester responded [snip]: >What Jung brings about is an archaeological, anthropological, >and cultural milieu to explain phenomena. The European >tradition has been more philosophical and cultural... I can find nothing in Jung's accounts (I refrain from calling them "explanations") of "synchronicity" that go beyond the propensity of the human mind to find meanings in phenomena that happen by chance to be associated in some way that cannot be shown to have determinate causes, e.g., events occurring at the same time. On this see: Why Our Brains Do Not Intuitively Grasp Probabilities Scientific American September 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5s2w5m And: Jung, by Robert Todd Caroll http://skepdic.com/jung.html "The concept of synchronicity is but an expression of apophenia." [the experience of seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.]" If we don't have fairly well-defined criteria, developed over many centuries of proposing theories and testing them against experience (i.e., something we may loosely call the scientific method), how can we avoid a situation where anything goes by way of explanation? "Cargo Cult Science", by Richard Feynman http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html Michael Britt wrote: >We all want students to be critical thinkers, but >I also want them to appreciate different modes of thinking. Michael: What do you mean by "appreciate" here? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- Subject: Philosophical differences? From: "Michael Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:33:26 -0400 (EDT) In the latest episode of my podcast I discuss our tendency to put more meaning into coincidence than really is there. I discussed a little probability and a little critical thinking. I then interviewed a Jungian analyst who explained what Jung meant by the term "Synchronicity". In all honesty, I don't think he came off looking too good and I'm wondering if I did him a disservice by not pointing out to the listeners that our (Western) way of thinking is based on empiricism and that this mode of thought is different than the tradition Jung came from. I have to admit though that the philosophical underpinnings of Jung's thinking is not my forte. We all want students to be critical thinkers, but I also want them to appreciate different modes of thinking. Can anyone give me a little insight on this issue? Perhaps the psych historians in our group? Michael -- Michael Britt, Ph.D. --------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Philosophical differences? From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One of the problems with the independent-dependent variable relationship as cherished in Western science is that it fails to take into consideration the complex interactional factors embedded in those variables.The IV tends to rob the real content of the experience.IVs do not exist by themselves. Psychology is trying to be a Physics wannabe. What Jung brings about is an archaeological, anthropological,and cultural milieu to explain phenomena. The Eiropean tradition has been more philosophical and cultural.One of the problems with education in American society is that we have become too visual which can be in opposition to thinking. Michael Sylvester, PhD --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Subject: Re: Philosophical differences? From: Michael Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We all want students to be critical thinkers, but I also want them to appreciate different modes of thinking."--an admirable goal in my opinion. In which case you may want to avoid stuff like "I discuss our tendency to put more meaning into coincidence than really is there." --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
