Philipee (and other tipsters):
I want to address only your initial thoughts on parsimony. I don't know much
about Occam (other than that he was William of Occam and is always cited by
psychologists as an advocate of parsimony in philosophical disputes), but I know that
Morgan's canon ("In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise
of a higher psychial faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcomne of the
exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale.") arose in the context
of comparative psychology and Darwinian thought. Conway Morgan was reacting against
the extreme anthropomorphism of George Romanes (who, for instance, observed ants and
used words like "agitated" "persevered" "sympathetic help" "rescue of their comrade"
to describe how they "freed" another ant from a rock). Morgan's canon admonishes us
to choose explanations lower on the psychological scale .. e.g. reflexes or
instincts.
I remember somebody (Boring?) saying that the Morgan's canon makes perfect sense
in Morgan's evolutionary context _if_ we think of evolution with humans "on top" and
the other animals at various steps below us. But evolution doesn't work that way.
Ants may be as complex as us though in different ways. And the canon (or "law") gets
applied in contexts other than evolutionary thinking.
I agree that the _law_ of parsimomy is not really a law. Though in mathemetical
modeling and other scientific theories, simplier theories are generally more
satisfying theories (satisfying in that all the details can be deduced from a few
simple theoretical ideas). I will now off to fully digest the second half of your
thoughful post .. JK
Philippe Gervaix wrote:
> Hello y'all from overseas,
>
> In a recent post, someone mentioned the "law of parsimony".
> My intervention has implications on two levels (at least, and as far as we
> are concerned on this list): epistemological and pedagogical. Of course both
> are intertwined.
> This reference to such a "law of parsimony" made me jump on (or off?) my
> seat for at least 2 reasons:
> 1. whoever said that there was such a "law"? Is it a natural law? Or is it
> just a theoretical statement? Technically, shouldn't it be refered to as a
> principle, a postulate or an axiom?
> 2. what is being refered to when we talk about a "law of parsimony": is this
> an allusion to "Occam's razor" , ie the principle that tends to reduce the
> number causes to a minimum?
>
> If this is the case, it seems to me that there is at best an abuse of
> language, or worse a retrospective illusion or anachronism. In the context
> of medieval scholatic philosophy/theology -with its array of metaphysical
> agents, causes or intermediate realms of beings-, we can understand that
> some philosophers would plead for such a principal as "reduction" or
> simplification, ie. Occam's razor.
>
> But are we dealing with the same thihgs when we are at grasp with political
> issues (and their horrific outbursts such as terrorism, or ethnic cleansing)
> or issues like violence in schools, or when we try to understand and treat
> pathologies such as autism, anorexia, OCD, or panic disorders to name but a
> few?
>
> I recently read that the alleged "causes" for pathologies such as autism or
> mental anorexia can add up to about 130 in the history of the different
> theories that have tried to explain these pathologies.
>
> My question is : "How do you deal with the question of complexity and
> multiple factors or causes?"
>
> It strikes me how the more a phenomenon, -be it medical, psychological, or
> political in its scope- is uncomprehensible, or escapes our control, the
> more "causal" and "simple" -or simplistic- explanations/solutions it
> receives.
>
> When we are faced with complexity, is it objective or subjective? is it
> just that we don't have the answer right at hand -then either we label
> things complex (until we find a simple/unique explanation), or we try to
> dismiss or dissolve complexity by invoking simple causes or explanations...
> Or are some phenomenons really complex and shoud be treated as such?
>
> It again strikes me when I hear or read scientific vulgarization magazines
> or TVshows how quickly commentators resort to phrases like: "Biologists (or
> geneticians) have now found a gene responsible for XYZ (your choice) ..." OR
> "We now know it is genetic..." .
> No later than yesterday did we hear from some (unknown and obscure - be
> reassured) French psychologist, that jealousy for example (and by extension
> other behavioral problems in children) has genetic causes, implying that we
> should deculpabilize parents, and find the right treatment/pill.
> (Did I hear someone in the back of the class mustering something about the
> rise and prevalence of ADHD diagnostics in the USA and the increase in
> Ritalin prescription? :-))
>
> My reflexion goes from there into 2 directions:
> 1. The question of the distinction between causal and correlational
> explanations: is this distinction purely rhetorical? or do we mean what we
> say when we say that for such or such phenomenon there is no causal (and
> simple) explanation?
>
> 2. How do we seriously take into account the complexity of psychological
> phenomenons?
>
> 3. How do we integrate and articulate the differents levels, fields and
> disciplines that come up with explanations/treatments of pathologies?
>
> 4. To what extent is reductionism still alive and creeping around?
>
> 5. Aren't we inclined to a certain fascination toward biological
> (genetic/neurological) explanations ? and, coupled with "theories" such as
> reductionism or "law of parsimony", doesn't this fascination finally
> misserve or disserve psychology as a discipline?
>
> 6. (;-)) Is there a label for the fascination described under 5?
>
> Comments awaited. Thank you for your patience.
>
> Phil Gervaix
> Switzerland
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig
Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468
Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412
---------------------------------------------------------------
"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows
not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before,
he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero.
