*HIGH FIVE*
Liz :-) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isparklaria Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 9:47 PM To: Memphis Freethought Alliance Subject: Re: Cognitive Psychology is the Creationism of Psychology On Nov 14, 7:44 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ps--There is more to science and the universe than philosophy; more to > life than philosophizing. In addition, there are clearer ways and > more fruitful ways of understanding and knowing the world than reading > philosophy books. Engage the world and read about the ways the world > reacts when engaged (that is essentially science but scientists engage > the world systematically). Jason, What you wrote above is approximately true and it is also approaximately philosophy. On Nov 14, 7:44 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ps--There is more to science and the universe than philosophy; more to > life than philosophizing. In addition, there are clearer ways and > more fruitful ways of understanding and knowing the world than reading > philosophy books. Engage the world and read about the ways the world > reacts when engaged (that is essentially science but scientists engage > the world systematically). > > Jason > > On Nov 14, 4:17 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists. > > > Jason this is a quick answer, since I am waiting to judge a debate > > that will start soon. Science or natural science, which was once > > called natural philosophy, is now and always has been a branch of > > epistemology. Philosophers, scientists and regular folks like us have > > always debated and determined what is good science for a in a > > particular subject area. The example you quoted above with the tree is > > a poor analogy. People use words like goal, anger and so forth and > > these words ca be investigated and modeled. > > > Cognitive scientist make and test models of minds using communication > > theory. Communication theory (aka cybernetics) is an empirical > > science. Computer scientists build and program machines that have > > behavior, so their research is empirical. It is no guarantee that the > > human mind works the same way even if they can produce aspects of > > human behavior. Until brain/mind research makes huge strides, > > cybernetic modeling is the best way to move forward. Neuroscientists > > will eventually look for structures that can perform like the models > > made by computer scientists and cognitive scientists. This is a common > > practice most forms of science. Physicists, for example look for > > particles that are needed to fill certain roles. > > > Philosophers are now and have always been considered the final > > authority in deciding what is good science. Those philosophers are > > also usually scientists in the fields they consider. They now what > > they are talking about and offer clear arguments that persuade the > > lesser philosophers and scientists, or don't. You might benefit from > > getting out of the strict Skinner behavior box with you thinking about > > behavior more often. There is a lot more to the world and the world of > > scientific psychology than Skinner, though he and his disciples have > > been significant contributors > > > On Nov 14, 2:22 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Michael, > > > > Newton (and others) had the same issue when arguing with "scientists" > > > of their time. For example, "scientists" could argue that oak wood > > > burned hotter than pinewood because oak wood possessed an angrier > > > personality (or the essences of the woods were different). Newton > > > changed the focus from (a) searches for and understanding of essences > > > (or personalities) of oak and pinewood to (b) differences in structure > > > and responses to environmental inputs, for example, the temperature > > > output differences (responses) of the two woods when set on fire. > > > > The second method bore more fruit and progress/understanding could be > > > more objectively measured verses relying on someone's subjective > > > opinion of progress. In "Science and Human Behavior (1953)," Skinner > > > suggested that behavior scientists apply a similar type of method to > > > studying animals including humans. Watson, Pavlov, etc also used > > > these types of methods as well as William James to a certain degree. > > > Objective psychology is the nearest (but not quite) equivalent to > > > Behavior Analysis. > > > > Jason > > > > On Nov 14, 11:28 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Michael, > > > > > I think that you are mixing philosophers and scientists. At > > > > universities such as Stanford, the university accountants also > > > > criticize scientists for spending too much money on lab equipment. > > > > The accounting office often tells the scientists, "Why can't you > > > > scientists be more like the mathematicians? The mathematicians only > > > > ask for paper, pencils and waste baskets. Better yet, why can't you > > > > scientists be more like the philosophers? Philosophers ask us to buy > > > > paper and pencils and don't even want waste baskets." > > > > > Read any cognitive psychology journal and you will find "attitudes" > > > > and other psychic or mind constructs used as explanations for > > > > behavior. Are these ghosts in the organisms strawman arguments? > > > > Perhaps...but I doubt it. > > > > > Jason > > > > > On Nov 14, 9:55 am, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 14, 9:00 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > By the same token, cognitive psychologists argued that nobody can see > > > > > > (so to speak) how complex organic behavior could've evolved (all > > > > > > natural) via natural selection; therefore, there supposedly must be a > > > > > > psychic force or mind that CAUSED or HAD A HAND IN these behaviors. > > > > > > Behavior analysts argue that the more and more we understand how these > > > > > > organic structures work (the interaction between the all natural > > > > > > organic structure and the all natural environment), the less and less > > > > > > we will argue for psychic forces or reply on concepts such as the > > > > > > "mind" to explain behavior, which includes events that occur inside > > > > > > the organisim such as "thoughts," "emotions," etc. > > > > > > Jason your argument above appears to be of a straw man variety against > > > > > cognitive psychology. Would you please produce some evidence that a > > > > > significant number of influential cognitive psychologists believe or > > > > > argue what you are saying? If you are merely saying that cognitive > > > > > scientist say that evolutionary psychology, as it now stands has some > > > > > holes in it, then I agree. But I can’t find evidence that they are > > > > > against evolutionary biology in principle. However, if you would > > > > > supply some evidence of this sort I’ll be happy to read and evaluate > > > > > it. > > > > > > This article from a top academic source (Stanford University) and > > > > > others say that the concepts of cognitive psych, such as mind, are > > > > > essential to evolutionary psych. The link is first followed by the > > > > > first paragraph. These two fields are complementary (cognitive and > > > > > evolutionary psych). It does say that cognitive psychologists are > > > > > critical of evolutionary psych but they still draw hypothesis from it. > > > > > The article says that philosophers of science particularly > > > > > philosophers of biology, they see evolutionary biology as deeply > > > > > flawed. I have pasted a paragraph with their reasons after the first > > > > > paragraph. It has nothing to do with their use concepts such as > > > > > mind. > > > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/ > > > > > > Evolutionary Psychology > > > > > First published Fri Feb 8, 2008 > > > > > Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed > > > > > approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive > > > > > psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not > > > > > all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal > > > > > psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary > > > > > psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that > > > > > the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—products of natural > > > > > selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and > > > > > reproduce. To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology > > > > > we require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary > > > > > biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of > > > > > mind. Philosophers are interested in evolutionary psychology for a > > > > > number of reasons. For philosophers of science —mostly philosophers of > > > > > biology—evolutionary psychology provides a critical target. There is a > > > > > broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary > > > > > psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise. For philosophers of mind and > > > > > cognitive science evolutionary psychology has been a source of > > > > > empirical hypotheses about cognitive architecture and specific > > > > > components of that architecture. Philosophers of mind are also > > > > > critical of evolutionary psychology but their criticisms are not as > > > > > all-encompassing as those presented by philosophers of biology. > > > > > Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in > > > > > moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a > > > > > critical target. > > > > > > 4. Philosophy of biology vs. Evolutionary Psychology > > > > > Many philosophers have criticized evolutionary psychology. Most of > > > > > these critics are philosophers of biology who argue that the research > > > > > tradition suffers from an overly zealous form of adaptationism > > > > > (Griffiths 1996; Richardson 1996; Grantham and Nichols 1999; Lloyd > > > > > 1999; Richardson 2007), an untenable reductionism (Dupre 1999; Dupre > > > > > 2001), a “bad empirical bet” about modules (Sterelny 1995; Sterelny > > > > > and Griffiths 1999; Sterelny 2003), a fast and loose conception of > > > > > fitness (Lloyd 1999; Lloyd and Feldman 2002); and most of the above > > > > > and much more (Buller 2005) (Cf. Downes 2005).[6] All of these > > > > > philosophers share one version or other of Buller's view: “I am > > > > > unabashedly enthusiastic about efforts to apply evolutionary theory to > > > > > human psychology” (2005, x).[7] But if philosophers of biology are not- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
