Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

Hi On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Jeff Ricker wrote: As I see it, we run into the levels-of-analysis problem here. (Again, I am not a philosopher, but I do have some half-formed thoughts on the matter.) Reductionism has been a goal of many scientists for decades. But the problem is that higher

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

Hi On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Jeff Ricker wrote: Because many people believe that, although a natural-science approach is excellent for understanding the physical world, it is very limited when we apply it to research on humans. They believe that other approaches involving a transcendent realm

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

G. Marc Turner wrote: Within the field I think most of us feel that psychology as a science addresses the naturalistic side of human nature and experience. But, the perception in the general public (and to some extent within the field) is that psychology should deal with ALL aspects of human

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

At 8:19 AM -0700 3/13/00, Jeff Ricker wrote: In an earlier post, I wrote: What we call science, they are arguing, must be expanded: it must include methods and techniques that allow us to study this transcendent realm. The natural sciences (including physics, chemistry, and biology) do not need

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Jeff Ricker wrote: I think the deeper problem is that we try to explain in naturalistic terms phenomena that have traditionally been explained in supernaturalistic terms. For example, many of us try to explain all mental events (thoughts, emotions, perceptions, etc.)

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

In an earlier post, I wrote: If this is true, then most of psychology is not science: whenever we speak of mental events, we are speaking of something that does not exist physically. No, science cannot be defined in terms of the physical versus the nonphysical. I wish it were this

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

At 2:20 PM -0700 3/10/00, Jeff Ricker wrote: Michael J. Kane wrote: My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and universal origins to enter biology and physical

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

At 5:51 AM -0800 3/11/00, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote: I guess I would like to add my perspective to this discussion. I believe that science, whatever else it is, is a way (or ways) to understand the natural world. If humananity is "simply" a part of the natural world then science is all we need to

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

At 11:52 AM -0600 3/11/00, G. Marc Turner wrote: ... And for some reason, as a field, Psychology has trouble making a stand and saying "This is not psychology." We tend to allow such a vast array of issues to fall under our umbrella that it becomes harder and harder to keep anything out. At some

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

Did someone bring up religion again? Oy. The CNN poll data seems consistent with other reports: In his book, How We Believe, Michael Shermer reports that, "about 45 percent of Americans reject evolution and accept a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible creation story...[while] only 7

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

I guess I would like to add my perspective to this discussion. I believe that science, whatever else it is, is a way (or ways) to understand the natural world. If humananity is "simply" a part of the natural world then science is all we need to understand ourselves and "alternate ways of

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

At 05:51 AM 3/11/00 PST, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote: However, if we truely need the supernatural to fully understand human beings, then science is not enough. In other words, if there are parts of us that are spirit or some other supernatural stuff, then there are parts of us that are not

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

Yes, Ken, you're absolutely right. A majority wanted at least some creationism in science courses; almost 20% want ONLY creationism! And that's in an **on-line** poll ! -Mike * Michael J. Kane Psychology Department Georgia State University

RE: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

as rare as he is wrong. My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and universal origins to enter biology and physical science curricula? Why is it okay to allow mystical

Re: Alternative ways of knowing (AWK)

Michael J. Kane wrote: My question is: If we allow for alternative ways of knowing (AWK) into our psychology curricula, then why not allow religious (mainstream or otherwise) views on human and universal origins to enter biology and physical science curricula? Why is it okay to allow