Many psychological theories have been disproven. Most of the disproven theories are long forgotten, which occasionally leads to their reappearance and a subsequent re-disproving. One problem in psychology is that many people are in denial about the range of things that have been disproven. For example, learning does not require a brain; intelligence is affected by genetics; men are better at some things and women are better at others; many human behaviors are best modeled as closed-loop systems; the state of gut bacteria is tremendously important in determining mood, often more so than "external" factors or anything you can measure about the brain; behavior is typically best predicted by a person's location, not by their "personality"; you could list over 20 disproven hypotheses regarding the moon illusion; you could list many disproven hypotheses regarding the "cognitive" factors that predict how long an infant will stare at a display; etc., etc., etc. Of course, any of these could be phrased in terms of 'proving' or 'disproving' depending on how you wanted to phrase the initial hypothesis, and some would prefer to say that 'support' or 'fair to support', etc.
On Thu, May 17, 2012 08:23 AM, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote: > The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take >relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe >cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if >basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I >think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing >about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So >what psychological theories have been disproven? > > > >________________________________________ >From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of >Nicholas Thompson [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] >Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM >To: c...@plektyx.com; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology > >Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth >(or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone >any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is >what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that >that’s what we got. > >N > >From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of >Carl Tollander >Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM >To: ERIC P. CHARLES >Cc: friam@redfish.com >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology > >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 ><c...@plektyx.com><mailto:c...@plektyx.com> 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 <c...@plektyx.com> 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 at http://www.friam.org > >> > > > >============================================================ > >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 > > > > >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 > > > 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
