Theory was a central issue in my 70’s grad study, but I agree with Miguel that it seems un-explored. I do not recall much time given to it in my undergrad study, except perhaps, in History and Systems class. Today, I teach (developed) a Scientific Foundations class required of our majors. A primary objective is to prepare them for our research methods classes. I include information on theory, and have a section categorizing four types of theory they might encounter in psych. Students have trouble with this but alas, they get almost no study of theory beyond this. They too, might get a final hit in our History and Systems class. I would be interested in hearing if others share Miguel’s concern, and what we think undergrads should learn.
G.L. (Gary) Peterson,Ph.D Psychology@SVSU On Nov 25, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Miguel Roig <ro...@stjohns.edu<mailto:ro...@stjohns.edu>> wrote: Michael's post brought back some memories of that controversy as the works he mentions were required reading in a couple of my courses in graduate school. But, in light of Jim's comments, I want to add a pet peeve of mine, based on general observations by a colleague of mine now retired, regarding how little formal instruction our students seem to get on the role of theory in scientific research. For example, even in my own educational experience, I do not recall having had to read about the structure of theories, theory construction and related matters. Similarly, and please correct me if I am mistaken, our undergraduates seem to get little formal instruction on the nature of theories, their relationship to laws, hypotheses, etc. beyond a couple of pages of a typical research methods textbook. Even current undergraduate textbooks titled Theories of Learning or Theories of Personality seem to provide only minimal instruction in these important areas beyond mere definitions. I have not taught graduate classes in many years, but my sense is that graduate students do not receive instruction in these important areas either. Are my impressions incorrect? Miguel ________________________________________ From: Jim Clark [j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca<mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca>] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2017 2:18 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: RE: [tips] Consciousness Theory Is Where Science Goes to Die Hi As a former Paivio student, I do not recall that Anderson’s paper was taken to be definitive about the debate. Paivio and Pylyshyn were both at U of Western Ontario when I was there, which made for some interesting classes and seminars. More broadly, I would think that scientists should be quite skeptical about claims that we cannot ever understand some phenomenon at a pretty deep level, whether it be imagery or consciousness. My main quibble with too many contemporary researchers on consciousness is that they act as though there was no research or reflection on the topic prior to the availability of sophisticated brain imaging. Finally I take some issue with Michael’s characterization of the proper attitudes toward scientific theories. Yes, they are always provisional and subject to refutation and modification, but we hardly want students to be too dismissive of them. So interpretation of “over invest” must be communicated carefully. Same for how theories develop … in some cases theories are replaced, but they also may be modified or subsumed under broader theoretical frameworks (e.g., Newton’s laws?). They might also be prematurely dismissed before the underlying mechanisms are understood (e.g., continental drift and tectonic plates). Students also need to appreciate that nominally different theories, especially those at different levels (molecular, molar) might actual reflect the same underlying mechanism. What especially needs to be emphasized with students is the importance of continuing empirical research to evaluate and strengthen our understanding of psychological phenomena. Take care Jim Jim Clark Professor of Psychology University of Winnipeg 204-786-9757 Room 4L41A (4th Floor Lockhart) https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.uwinnipeg.ca%2F~clark&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=Ypt0e5Zr4s%2B8Z1EwqRgEo%2FY%2BqMaYhTWXS3lPBAEWXm8%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http:%2F%2Fwww.uwinnipeg.ca%2F~clark&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=eE7kf853Sh3xmSajh6ke6%2F7MNJWZdHR92Ry9J9bWYpo%3D&reserved=0> From: Michael Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] Sent: November-24-17 10:14 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Michael Palij Subject: [tips] Consciousness Theory Is Where Science Goes to Die A recently published article in "Frontiers in Psychology" (word to the wise) by Oakley & Halligan argues that consciousness is an epiphenomenal by-product of an unconscious process called the "internal narrative". If this sounds familiar it may be because it is similar to the 1970s imagery debate. that is. do mental images such as visual mental images have psychological reality and admit transformation and operations comparable to real world pictures (e.g.., the Shepard mental rotation studies, the Kosslyn distance estimation on images research, etc.) or are mental images epiphenomenal by-products of abstract cognitive processes as argued by Zenon Pylyshyn and other supporters of a Chomskyan style cognitive architecture (i.e., rule and symbol systems with cognitively impenetrable modules). John Anderson's 1978 paper pointing out that there was no principled way to determine which position was correct pretty much settled the argument but proponents of the analog view of mental images (Shepard, etc.) or the epiphenomenal view of mental images (Pylyshyn) would continue to skirmish over the decades. As far as I know, Anderson's conclusions still holds. I say all this as a prologue to identifying the sources for the Oakley & Halligan paper just to prime the reader toward a particular conclusion. ;-) I became aware of Oakley & Halligan paper because a newspaper article about it popped up in my news feed. The UK newspaper the Daily Mail has an article that presents Oakley & Halligan's speculations as conclusive science (or is this just my interpretation?); see: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fsciencetech%2Farticle-5114511%2FWhat-consciousness-not-drives-human-mind.html&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=yGZso6WJ1xH4aTqJfVJmVm%2BD%2BkMQLVg6yMf26FUM5n4%3D&reserved=0 The original article can be accessed here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.frontiersin.org%2Farticles%2F10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2017.01924%2Ffull&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=%2BJDQXA19pB1OISphArEkUXg2bI4sjed5b4qyESwDxlA%3D&reserved=0 It is likely your students may hear or read about this paper or, worse, some textbook author may take it seriously and include it in their text, so it may be worth one's time to examine it. If students raise questions about the article in class remember to tell them that as a theory, as an explanation of a phenomenon, it suffers from the faults of all theories: it is limited by its reliance on results collected to date and may be falsified by future results, there may be alternative explanations that account for the results equally well but lead to fundamentally different conclusions, and, finally, all theories have a shelf life because they are limited, flawed, tentative, likely to be falsified by new data, and replaced by theory that better explains the phenomenon of interest. So, tell students to not over-invest in any one theory if for no other reason than the sunk cost effect. Happy Post-Birdday! And "Hi!" to the Canadians and Tipsters from Parts Unknown. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu<mailto:m...@nyu.edu><mailto:m...@nyu.edu> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca<mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca><mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca>. To unsubscribe click here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffsulist.frostburg.edu%2Fu%3Fid%3D3229968.90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91291%26n%3DT%26l%3Dtips%26o%3D51760&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=9XOhNhHvJwRD8Bt6E9%2BFx5f2lW9Eonw2gYWzlNOTWck%3D&reserved=0 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-51760-3229968.90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-51760-3229968.90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91...@fsulist.frostburg.edu><mailto:leave-51760-3229968.90f21a83d5f62f052ba84a49e2f91...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ro...@stjohns.edu<mailto:ro...@stjohns.edu><mailto:ro...@stjohns.edu>. To unsubscribe click here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffsulist.frostburg.edu%2Fu%3Fid%3D1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c12d%26n%3DT%26l%3Dtips%26o%3D51765&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=wIQSwONg%2BRoo%2FG7%2FsScLtYOB4v5e6q90J8pQhWTgLbs%3D&reserved=0 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-51765-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-51765-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu><mailto:leave-51765-1632838.7e62b84813297f170a6fc240dab8c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: peter...@svsu.edu<mailto:peter...@svsu.edu>. To unsubscribe click here: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffsulist.frostburg.edu%2Fu%3Fid%3D13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd94b%26n%3DT%26l%3Dtips%26o%3D51766&data=02%7C01%7Cpeterson%40svsu.edu%7C8a839157df3b4fe164a408d533ffab9d%7C550f45ff3e8342a197d970ad8935b0c5%7C0%7C0%7C636472095555724638&sdata=5z%2BjJUUrSeTP8LQFfaoOCvyDZJof1cnyX4HEtqxW2g0%3D&reserved=0 or send a blank email to leave-51766-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-51766-13445.e3edca0f6e68bfb76eaf26a8eb6dd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu> --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51768 or send a blank email to leave-51768-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
