Hi
Rather than "nothing," what Jim saw was the following passage in a
review (described by Chris as "a fine review") of the book on
objectivity.
"It makes a persuasive case that the modern notion of objectivity
emerged only in the mid-19th century. It was then that objectivity
prevailed as what t
Michael Smith wrote:
> I think Jim's post highlights some of the problems when talking about
> "objective", "evidence", "opinion", etc.
>
> That is, the reviewer Jan Golinski is simply promoting further
> "evidence" for his views while Jim sees through this
> with his more "objective" knowledge whi
I think Jim's post highlights some of the problems when talking about
"objective", "evidence", "opinion", etc.
That is, the reviewer Jan Golinski is simply promoting further
"evidence" for his views while Jim sees through this
with his more "objective" knowledge which presumably puts the lie to Go
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
>>> Christopher Green 25-Nov-10 12:25:36 PM >>>
Read the book and you might learn something new.
Has the recent crankiness on TIPs gone viral?
Jim
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch..
On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:34 PM, "Jim Clark" wrote:
> Hi
>
> I do wonder about the application of "objective" to this review since the
> reviewer, Jan Golinski, is an unabashed promoter of a constructionist view of
> the history of science. From his website, here is a brief description of one
Hi
I do wonder about the application of "objective" to this review since the
reviewer, Jan Golinski, is an unabashed promoter of a constructionist view of
the history of science. From his website, here is a brief description of one
of his books:
"Viewing scientific knowledge as a product of h
In the article in Time cited by Michael Britt,
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2010/11/16/olbermann-jousts-koppel-in-battle-of-high-horses/
James Poniewozik writes: "You can have subjective beliefs—because we
all do—and yet subordinate them to objective evidence."
Of course (as I'm sure Poniewozik
Mike Palij wrote:
> Shameless self-promoter! :-)
Why, thank you! And while we're on the subject of me :-), this interview
came out today:
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=23&editionID=195&ArticleID=1769
> In the meantime, for those who've given up their subsc
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:49:11 -0800, Christopher D. Green wrote:
>Indeed, we should be objective, but we should also read Daston &
>Galison's book about the history of the term, and how its meaning has
>shifted over the decades from the mid-19th century until now (so that we
>don't get too self-r
yland
-Original Message-
From: Louis E. Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu]
Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 11:26 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Should we be objective?
I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"
Make it a good day
Indeed, we should be objective, but we should also read Daston &
Galison's book about the history of the term, and how its meaning has
shifted over the decades from the mid-19th century until now (so that we
don't get too self-righteous about the matter).
http://www.amazon.com/Objectivity-Lorr
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 08:04:07 -0800, Michael Britt wrote:
>I recently interviewed Adele Faber, co-author of several parenting books.
>As I edited the audio file for my podcast it occurred to me that it will be
>clear to the listener that I agree with her ideas regarding parenting (which
>are cle
A few more thoughts. If I understand the Time journalist/blogger James
Poniewozik correctly then being:
Objective - is to present the facts but no conclusions regarding them
Neutral - is to a) present the facts, b) to provide your conclusion regarding
those facts and c) to remain open to a new
Hi
We can be more or less objective. Moreover, we are more likely to be objective
if we aspire to being objective (i.e., try to be sensitive to our biases) and
if we follow well-developed principles for identifying, reducing, minimizing,
and perhaps eliminating bias (i.e., the repertoire of sc
I think we definitely should revise our beliefs based on objective evidence,
but it's hard to do and we often don't know when we're not being "objective"
(or neutral). For example, I saw a few days ago that there is a new article in
the Journal of Educational Psychology entitled, "Does Discover
I think the question should be "Can we be objective?"
Make it a good day
-Louis-
Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org
Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, Georgia 31698
Hi
Yes! That is, we should "seek, acknowledge and interpret objective
evidence, even when it conflicts with our preconceptions or with what we
wish to be true." Are you thinking that we should NOT try to base and
revise our beliefs on objective evidence?
Take care
Jim
James M. Clark
Professor o
17 matches
Mail list logo
