Wouldn't it be most people don't embrace the scientific method as a way of knowing since there are far more people with an eastern mindset (or a faith based one) than people with a western scientific mindset? Aren't people who hold a physicalistic scientific worldview still in the minority (and will probably to remain so)? I am not an expert in Jung or the eastern mindset (although I have read a fair amount of "eastern stuff" a long time ago) I nevetheless read (somewhere) that Jung regularly consulted the I Ching (Chinese book of wisdom and divination). As an example, the western mindset would explain that throwing 3 pennies on the floor will result in a certain pattern of heads and tails as a calculable probability and that is that. The eastern mindset would agree, but would want to know why that particular pattern apears at that particular time. So, probability theory can tell you how often to expect a particular pattern (sort of) but not why the particular pattern shows. Probability theory is unsatisfying to this worldview since it more or less says that the particular pattern you see happened because it happened. --Mike
--- On Fri, 9/12/08, Michael Britt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Michael Britt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [tips] Philosophical differences? To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, September 12, 2008, 2:55 AM Allen, I completely agree with you that "synchronicity" sounds like nothing more than, as you quote Todd Caroll saying, "apophenia" (sounds like a bad medical condition, but I'm glad to hear that there's a name for this). My interviewee's explanation of synchronicity did nothing to convince me than it was all just coincidence and when he started talking about Jung's interest in the paranormal and then about metaphysics - well, I felt like it was time to wrap up the conversation. My question about wanting students to "appreciate" his point of view was born out of my desire to see if any TIPS members who are more familiar with the philosophical foundations of psychology had any thoughts to add. Anyone who was raised in the US and trained as a psychologist in this country is heavily schooled in the scientific method and I wanted to see if there wasn't a perspective (or a way of thinking about the world) that Jung grew out of that I should have discussed in the episode (maybe this would make students more culturally sensitive?). I guess my question was sparked by a) my desire to make sure that I was fair to the interviewee who is an intelligent person who obviously strongly believes in synchronicity and b) my desire to let students know that not everyone embraces the scientific method as their preferred way of knowing. Michael Michael Britt [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.thepsychfiles.com On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Allen Esterson wrote: 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 --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
