You never know. Thats why in Judaism there is no such thing as a
small mitzvah. What we think is insignificant can swell up to have great
consequences. A couple of weeks ago, that was brought home to me by a
message from a student, whom I remembered, thanking me for something I dont
TIPSters,
I have an interesting question: What classifies one as a scientist?
I was listening to an NPR report on the dialogues between Freud and
Einstein, and the reporter characterized both as the two most famous
scientists at that time. While no one would question the idea that Einstein
was
No.
Nancy Melucci LBCC
Huntington Beach CA
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tend to concur. Granted things were different a hundred years ago,
but inasmuch as Einstein was a scientist in that day, then Freud was
not.
The crucial thing for me would be the predictive validity of Freudian
theory. Einstein's science generated theory that made for many
predictions;
Hi, Michael --
In the research Roediger cited, the tests were free recall *with no
feedback*, and thus didn't supply any information that could later be
used to improve performance. His suggestion is that the very act of
trying to recall things makes currently-un-recallable information more
Hi
Yes and No. Freud was a scientist when doing his early work on
brain functioning (some of his figures are extremely prescient of
contemporary network models), but lost much of that side of his
character (probably not all) when he shifted to clinical
interests. Perhaps a model for the
But they say that repeated testing across a multitude of testing situations,
or rest types is a good thing for deep learning; I had the impression you said
multiple testings only helped people memorize but did not promote deep
learning. Perhaps the distinction here is that the testing not be of
Marc,
I didn't mean to suggest that you were interested in teaching to the test, just
to point out that what might appear to be teaching to the test might simply be
ensuring some correspondence between the material presented and the test.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
- Mike
[EMAIL
I'm certain that almost everyone on this list will answer no this
question (a few already have). There are good reasons for doubting that
he was, but those aside, it is a virtually automatic and (ironically?)
defensive reaction of most psychologists to disavow Freud immediately
and
I'm certain that almost everyone on this list will answer no this
question (a few already have). There are good reasons for doubting that
he was, but those aside, it is a virtually automatic and (ironically?)
defensive reaction of most psychologists to disavow Freud immediately
and
Thanks Christopher for your very eloquent, thoughtful response to my query.
I found your points well-reasoned, and I agree with you that defining what a
scientist is necessitates taking time/context into consideration. The
question is definitely a complex one.
Allow me one correction. Christopher
Todd Nelson wrote:
Looking forward to hearing what Christopher and the rest of the TIPSters
have to say on the issue of what is a scientist?
My take on the question is It's a misleading question. What matters,
of course, is not whether or not a particular person is a scientist, but
that
Paul Smith wrote:
I personally don't really care that much whether or not Freud was
a scientist - I care about which of his claims are supported and which
are not.
I suspect we are, here, mostly in agreement that, under our current
state of knowledge, Freud's explanations of various
Chris et al.: I assume that the correspondence to which Todd refers is
the famous 1934 exchange between the American psychologist (of
Washington University) Saul Rosenzweig (who passed away last year) and
Sigmund Freud. Rosenzweig sent Freud a description of some
experimental work he had
14 matches
Mail list logo
