Eric,
Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.
Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start
somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda
simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all
'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it,
is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right
questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can
find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science
terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their
experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in
the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline.
Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do
you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is
about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved
scientific questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which
is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different
world of discourse.
C
On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Well, to make two more general claims then:
1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you
suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out
specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.
2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot
possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the
trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a
genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people
we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a
startlingly large part of the population still think falling works
like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech
problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is
now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.
Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do
you think the category is incoherent?
Eric
On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, *Carl Tollander <[email protected]>* wrote:
Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and
sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can
be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better,
how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to
be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the
(apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no.
So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem",
which seems, um, problematic.
As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and
perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of
"magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's
inner universe, specifically.
Carl
On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's
satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that
road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become
sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone
to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been
solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any
satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular
problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks
are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.
Eric
P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you
take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the
path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was
solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a
little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that
problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which
it is not.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, *Carl Tollander
<[email protected]> <#>* wrote:
OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
Where did those criteria come from?
If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were
grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently,
given
all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to
be
snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.
All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,
somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or
the
best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly
understood context, and makes a leap.
C
On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
> replaced phrenology, etc
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
> waiting to be replaced?
>
> -J.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
