[tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94
WE SHALL OVERCOME BELLS OF RHYMHEY ABI YOYO IF YOU MISS ME AT THE BACK OF THE BUS IN TIPSVILLE michael --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33592 or send a blank email to leave-33592-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94
At the height of my guitar playing days (height is a relative term), I could stumble through 'Living in the Country' by Pete Seeger .. it's the only instrumental I heard him do. There may have been others. Lets not forget: Little Boxes Where have all the flowers gone (inspired by the obscure novel And Quiet Flows the Don) Guantanamera Waist Deep in the Big Muddy many many more For those interested ... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/arts/music/pete-seeger-songwriter-and-champion-of-folk-music-dies-at-94.html?hp == John W. Kulig, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Coordinator, Psychology Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: michael sylvester msylves...@copper.net To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:59:26 AM Subject: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94 WE SHALL OVERCOME BELLS OF RHYMHEY ABI YOYO IF YOU MISS ME AT THE BACK OF THE BUS IN TIPSVILLE michael This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu . To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=33592 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33592-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33593 or send a blank email to leave-33593-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezyd40kJFq0 From Chimes of Freedom: The Songs of Bob Dylan Honoring 50 Years of Amnesty International. http://amnestyusa.org/chimes Also see: The Story Behind 'Forever Young: http://youtu.be/PW4XxX06AmAhttp://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FPW4XxX06AmAsession_token=PJa8aWGuMCHya3_X3HJRBfG90gF8MTM5MTAwNDMxN0AxMzkwOTE3OTE3 And visit: http://www.ForeverPete.com Music: Produced by Martin Lewis Mark Hudson. Video: Produced by Martin Lewis. Filmed by Jake Clennell. Edited by Peter Shelton. Dear Tipsters, Here is Pete Seeger performing “Forever Young” with the Rivertwon Kidsabout 2 years ago. Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore [cid:image001.jpg@01CF1C08.89FD7900] Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.camailto:stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psyblocked::http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore [cid:image002.jpg@01CF1C08.89FD7900] [cid:image003.jpg@01CF1C08.89FD7900] ___ From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: January 28, 2014 9:03 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94 At the height of my guitar playing days (height is a relative term), I could stumble through 'Living in the Country' by Pete Seeger .. it's the only instrumental I heard him do. There may have been others. Lets not forget: Little Boxes Where have all the flowers gone (inspired by the obscure novel And Quiet Flows the Don) Guantanamera Waist Deep in the Big Muddy many many more For those interested ... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/arts/music/pete-seeger-songwriter-and-champion-of-folk-music-dies-at-94.html?hp == John W. Kulig, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Coordinator, Psychology Honors Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == From: michael sylvester msylves...@copper.netmailto:msylves...@copper.net To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:59:26 AM Subject: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94 WE SHALL OVERCOME BELLS OF RHYMHEY ABI YOYO IF YOU MISS ME AT THE BACK OF THE BUS IN TIPSVILLE michael [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png]http://www.avast.com/ This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirushttp://www.avast.com/ protection is active. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=33592 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33592-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-33592-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.camailto:smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=33593 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33593-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-33593-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33594 or send a blank email to leave-33594-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu inline: image001.jpginline: image002.jpginline: image003.jpg
Re: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94
Stuart, I remember vividly Pete Seeger being a music director while I, as a very young boy, at the University Settlement's Camp Beacon in the late '40s. To this day, I still can see and hear him strumming his banjo and we singing along Wimoweh and He's Got the Whole World In His Hands. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta, Ga 31602 (C) 229-630-0821 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \/\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33598 or send a blank email to leave-33598-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94
Dear Louis, Thanks for the memory. I never saw him in person, but have enjoyed his performance in audio and video. He is the real deal when it comes to the folk tradition. Sincerely, Stuart ___ Floreat Labore Recti cultus pectora roborant Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402 Department of Psychology, Fax: 819 822 9661 Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke, Québec J1M 1Z7, Canada. E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy Floreat Labore ___ -Original Message- From: Louis Eugene Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu] Sent: January 28, 2014 9:28 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] IN MEMORIAM PETE SEEGER 94 Stuart, I remember vividly Pete Seeger being a music director while I, as a very young boy, at the University Settlement's Camp Beacon in the late '40s. To this day, I still can see and hear him strumming his banjo and we singing along Wimoweh and He's Got the Whole World In His Hands. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org 203 E. Brookwood Pl http://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta, Ga 31602 (C) 229-630-0821 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \/\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3n=Tl=tipso=33598 or send a blank email to leave-33598-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33600 or send a blank email to leave-33600-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science
Yesterday, someone on PsychTeacher asked a question about changing the name of his dept from Psychology to Psychological Sciences. I was reminded of the old adage, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name isn't one, and I said so. A number of people responded, some on the list, some through back channel. Last night, I offered this explanation (below), but the PsychTeacher gate keepers thought it was argumentative and insulting (their words) and refused it. I had thought it was the opposite of that, but chacun à son goût. I repost it here, for those of you who are on that other list, and wondered whether I was serious. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Begin forwarded message: From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca Date: January 28, 2014 at 12:32:07 AM EST To: Society for Teaching of Psychology PsychTeacher psychteac...@list.kennesaw.edu Subject: Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science Earlier today I wrote: All I can think of is the old saying, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name, isn't one. There has been a bit more blowback than I expected. Note, I didn't say it was an immutable truth, only that I was reminded of it. When I first heard the expression, I was doing graduate cognitive science, and reflexively thought They can't mean us! Then one day I saw a poster for a graduate program in pastoral science, and I laughed and laughed. Just the way those in biology laughed at me, and those in chemistry laughed at those in the biological sciences, and so forth. Things don't have to be literally true to make one productively reflect on one's claims and, perhaps more important, on the academic insecurities that make one react defensively to a harmless joke. I understand why a laboratory department wouldn't want to be confused with a clinical department, but I also know a bit of the history of the field, and that knowledge makes me sometimes giggle at our modern turf battles. Wundt didn't call his psychology physiological because he thought he was doing physiology. He called it that in order to borrow for his new approach to psychology the aura of successes that modern German experimental physiology had achieved in the pervious few decades (while simultaneously borrowing their lab equipment). Physiology was the fashionable academic word of the age. There were physiological ethics and physiological aesthetics at the time too, so-named for the same reason. It was marketing, pure and simple. And it worked. Wundt and his lab were so successful in placing graduates in philosophy chairs around Germany that the traditional philosophers were driven to present a petition to the Minister of Education to have it stopped. The German government responded by creating separate Psychology departments. It is the same with our lobbying for the word science to be included in the names of our departments. Both true and necessary as well as petty and casuistic, all at the same time. Such is life. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33603 or send a blank email to leave-33603-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science
Thanks for this historical perspective, Chris. I was unaware of the cachet of physiological during Wundt's time. As Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. As you can see in my signature, my department has made this leap (and created a name that is too long to meet the character limits of fields in university and State data systems). UWF is in the middle of a reorganization. The current proposal entails eliminating the College of Arts and Sciences and creating three colleges: College of Sciences and Engineering, College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, and College of Health. The campus discussions about which departments and programs belong where have been most interesting. Some departments have multiple programs that will be located in different colleges. Language is powerful. Sometimes what we call things is important. Yes, it is marketing. But there is marketing that is pure spin and marketing that communicates substance to people who won't take the time to discover it otherwise. I think psychology is thin-skinned about this topic because it has sometimes harbored some silly stuff . . . as have other sciences, if we consider some of the dead ends of other sciences (phlogiston is the easiest target, cold fusion might be another, remember RNA-transfer of memories? - psychology shares some blame for that one). The self-correcting nature of science solves those problems (eventually). Still, the question about whether this particular marketing misfires and undermines our credibility is worth discussion. _ Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Associate Professor NSF UWF Faculty ADVANCE Scholar School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514 Phone: (850) 857-6355 (direct) or 473-7435 (CUTLA) csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca wrote: Yesterday, someone on PsychTeacher asked a question about changing the name of his dept from Psychology to Psychological Sciences. I was reminded of the old adage, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name isn't one, and I said so. A number of people responded, some on the list, some through back channel. Last night, I offered this explanation (below), but the PsychTeacher gate keepers thought it was argumentative and insulting (their words) and refused it. I had thought it was the opposite of that, but chacun à son goût. I repost it here, for those of you who are on that other list, and wondered whether I was serious. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Begin forwarded message: *From:* Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca *Date:* January 28, 2014 at 12:32:07 AM EST *To:* Society for Teaching of Psychology PsychTeacher psychteac...@list.kennesaw.edu *Subject:* *Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science* Earlier today I wrote: All I can think of is the old saying, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name, isn't one. There has been a bit more blowback than I expected. Note, I didn't say it was an immutable truth, only that I was reminded of it. When I first heard the expression, I was doing graduate cognitive science, and reflexively thought They can't mean us! Then one day I saw a poster for a graduate program in pastoral science, and I laughed and laughed. Just the way those in biology laughed at me, and those in chemistry laughed at those in the biological sciences, and so forth. Things don't have to be literally true to make one productively reflect on one's claims and, perhaps more important, on the academic insecurities that make one react defensively to a harmless joke. I understand why a laboratory department wouldn't want to be confused with a clinical department, but I also know a bit of the history of the field, and that knowledge makes me sometimes giggle at our modern turf battles. Wundt didn't call his psychology physiological because he thought he was doing physiology. He called it that in order to borrow for his new approach to psychology the aura of successes that modern German experimental physiology had achieved in the pervious few decades (while simultaneously borrowing their lab equipment). Physiology was the fashionable academic word of the age. There were physiological ethics and physiological aesthetics at the time too, so-named for the same reason. It was marketing, pure and simple. And it worked. Wundt and his lab were so successful in placing graduates in philosophy chairs around Germany that the traditional philosophers were driven to present a petition to the
RE: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science
I'm curious, Claudia: will your School end up in the College of Sciences and Engineering or in The College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences? Marty Martin Bourgeois Professor and Chair Social and Behavioral Sciences Florida Gulf Coast University Fort Myers, FL 33931 ** Confidentiality Statement Florida has a very broad public records law. As a result, any written communication created or received by Florida Gulf Coast University employees is subject to disclosure to the public and the media, upon request, unless otherwise exempt. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by phone or in writing. From: Claudia Stanny [csta...@uwf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 11:48 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science Thanks for this historical perspective, Chris. I was unaware of the cachet of physiological during Wundt's time. As Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. As you can see in my signature, my department has made this leap (and created a name that is too long to meet the character limits of fields in university and State data systems). UWF is in the middle of a reorganization. The current proposal entails eliminating the College of Arts and Sciences and creating three colleges: College of Sciences and Engineering, College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, and College of Health. The campus discussions about which departments and programs belong where have been most interesting. Some departments have multiple programs that will be located in different colleges. Language is powerful. Sometimes what we call things is important. Yes, it is marketing. But there is marketing that is pure spin and marketing that communicates substance to people who won't take the time to discover it otherwise. I think psychology is thin-skinned about this topic because it has sometimes harbored some silly stuff . . . as have other sciences, if we consider some of the dead ends of other sciences (phlogiston is the easiest target, cold fusion might be another, remember RNA-transfer of memories? - psychology shares some blame for that one). The self-correcting nature of science solves those problems (eventually). Still, the question about whether this particular marketing misfires and undermines our credibility is worth discussion. _ Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Associate Professor NSF UWF Faculty ADVANCE Scholar School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences University of West Florida 11000 University Parkway Pensacola, FL 32514 Phone: (850) 857-6355 (direct) or 473-7435 (CUTLA) csta...@uwf.edumailto:csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Christopher Green chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca wrote: Yesterday, someone on PsychTeacher asked a question about changing the name of his dept from Psychology to Psychological Sciences. I was reminded of the old adage, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name isn't one, and I said so. A number of people responded, some on the list, some through back channel. Last night, I offered this explanation (below), but the PsychTeacher gate keepers thought it was argumentative and insulting (their words) and refused it. I had thought it was the opposite of that, but chacun à son goût. I repost it here, for those of you who are on that other list, and wondered whether I was serious. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Begin forwarded message: From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca Date: January 28, 2014 at 12:32:07 AM EST To: Society for Teaching of Psychology PsychTeacher psychteac...@list.kennesaw.edumailto:psychteac...@list.kennesaw.edu Subject: Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science Earlier today I wrote: All I can think of is the old saying, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name, isn't one. There has been a bit more blowback than I expected. Note, I didn't say it was an immutable truth, only that I was reminded of it. When I first heard the expression, I was doing graduate cognitive science, and reflexively thought They can't mean us! Then one day I saw a poster for a graduate program in pastoral science, and I laughed and laughed. Just the way those in biology laughed at me,
Re: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science
That you were able to share your contribution with us without anyone deciding whether it was appropriate or not is one of the reasons I like TIPS so much and why I wouldn't join that other list. Admittedly, I sometimes cringe at some of the stuff that gets posted here (you all know what I mean), but I rather put up with that noise than miss a valuable signal, such as your post. Thank you for your contribution, Chris, I, too, was not aware that the term physiological was the 19th century equivalent of today's neuro-. Miguel Original Message - From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Cc: Victor Benassi victor.bena...@unh.edu Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:56:05 AM Subject: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science Yesterday, someone on PsychTeacher asked a question about changing the name of his dept from Psychology to Psychological Sciences. I was reminded of the old adage, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name isn't one, and I said so. A number of people responded, some on the list, some through back channel. Last night, I offered this explanation (below), but the PsychTeacher gate keepers thought it was argumentative and insulting (their words) and refused it. I had thought it was the opposite of that, but chacun à son goût. I repost it here, for those of you who are on that other list, and wondered whether I was serious. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Begin forwarded message: From: Christopher Green chri...@yorku.ca Date: January 28, 2014 at 12:32:07 AM EST To: Society for Teaching of Psychology PsychTeacher psychteac...@list.kennesaw.edu Subject: Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science Earlier today I wrote: All I can think of is the old saying, Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name, isn't one. There has been a bit more blowback than I expected. Note, I didn't say it was an immutable truth, only that I was reminded of it. When I first heard the expression, I was doing graduate cognitive science, and reflexively thought They can't mean us! Then one day I saw a poster for a graduate program in pastoral science, and I laughed and laughed. Just the way those in biology laughed at me, and those in chemistry laughed at those in the biological sciences, and so forth. Things don't have to be literally true to make one productively reflect on one's claims and, perhaps more important, on the academic insecurities that make one react defensively to a harmless joke. I understand why a laboratory department wouldn't want to be confused with a clinical department, but I also know a bit of the history of the field, and that knowledge makes me sometimes giggle at our modern turf battles. Wundt didn't call his psychology physiological because he thought he was doing physiology. He called it that in order to borrow for his new approach to psychology the aura of successes that modern German experimental physiology had achieved in the pervious few decades (while simultaneously borrowing their lab equipment). Physiology was the fashionable academic word of the age. There were physiological ethics and physiological aesthetics at the time too, so-named for the same reason. It was marketing, pure and simple. And it worked. Wundt and his lab were so successful in placing graduates in philosophy chairs around Germany that the traditional philosophers were driven to present a petition to the Minister of Education to have it stopped. The German government responded by creating separate Psychology departments. It is the same with our lobbying for the word science to be included in the names of our departments. Both true and necessary as well as petty and casuistic, all at the same time. Such is life. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: miguelr...@comcast.net. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=1133043.af3ec43309a63197bc82eb6702801542n=Tl=tipso=33603 or send a blank email to leave-33603-1133043.af3ec43309a63197bc82eb6702801...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33611 or send a blank email to leave-33611-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to Psychological Science
On 2014-01-28, at 11:48 AM, Claudia Stanny wrote: Language is powerful. Sometimes what we call things is important. Yes, it is marketing. But there is marketing that is pure spin and marketing that communicates substance to people who won't take the time to discover it otherwise. I think psychology is thin-skinned about this topic because it has sometimes harbored some silly stuff . . . as have other sciences, if we consider some of the dead ends of other sciences (phlogiston is the easiest target, cold fusion might be another, remember RNA-transfer of memories? - psychology shares some blame for that one). The self-correcting nature of science solves those problems (eventually). Still, the question about whether this particular marketing misfires and undermines our credibility is worth discussion. Christian Science - http://christianscience.com Creation Science - http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/ Chiropractic Science - http://www.oztrekk.com/programs/chiropractic/PG/macquarie.php Reflexology Science - http://www.reflexology4backpain.com/ascience.html Psychic Science - http://www.psychicscience.org It's just a word. Anyone can use it. No one should be convinced that psychology is a science just because we stick the word in our department's name. Perhaps it expresses our commitment to being scientific, but the word is so flexible in the first place (and so widely abused in the second), that I don't know that it tells anyone about our commitments (except that we felt compelled to add an honorific to our dept name, which might speak as much to insecurities as to our convictions). What is more, since the phrase Clinical Science is becoming increasingly popular, it doesn't really even serve to make the distinction we want it to. Perhaps Psychological Research would mark a distinction from Practice, but I have never seen that used. Besides, Research is just as flexible and just as liable to be adopted by people we don't regard as being serious. In any case, there are probably activities that legitimately take place in scholarly psychology departments that would only count as science in the broadest sense of the term. Theoretical critique? Historical research? And what about truly science-based (by whatever definition you favor) psychological assessment and therapy? Everyone is, of course, free to add to their name whatever symbolic markers they would like. But I don't think there is much long term value to be gained in waging (metaphorical) wars over such things. Words and things. Words and things. (To be fair, I feel the same way about people who insist on having PhD affixed after their name on APA convention name tags. I even saw a vanity license plate on a car the other day that said PhD 68. Sheesh!) cynical Chris --- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ = --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33614 or send a blank email to leave-33614-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
[tips] Feynman on Psychology
Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.comwrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33618 or send a blank email to leave-33618-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69n=Tl=tipso=33618 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33618-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33620 or send a blank email to leave-33620-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological research. Rick Stevens School of Behavioral and Social Sciences University of Louisiana at Monroe On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Here's a clip from a video showing physicist Richard Feynman talking about the scientific method. In this 55 sec clip from the video he alludes to psychology and says essentially, you can't have a prediction be shown to be right no matter which way it comes out. Which is of course a good point. He then goes on to be a bit more dismissive of psychology because since it's hard to measure a concept like love then you can't claim to know anything about it. http://reelsurfer.com/watch/share/40721 Thoughts? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: stevens.r...@gmail.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f38dn=Tl=tipso=33615 or send a blank email to leave-33615-13526.d532f8e870faf8a0d8f6433b7952f...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: michael.br...@thepsychfiles.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958f69n=Tl=tipso=33618 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33618-13405.0125141592fa9ededc665c55d9958...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=33620 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-33620-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here:
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- Original Message On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 14:28:21 -0800, Christopher Green wrote: Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33624 or send a blank email to leave-33624-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology - ERROR IN COMMENT
I had a momentary psychotic break with reality and left *NOT* in one of the sentences I wrote. Below is the corrected text. Apologies to Chris and anyone else. On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:43:34 -0800, Mike Palij wrote: I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm *NOT* challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33627 or send a blank email to leave-33627-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Feynman on Psychology
Hi Just to pick up on a few points in this thread. Of course we know as psychologists that few concepts have nice, tidy definitions (i.e., necessary and sufficient conditions) and that prototypical models of concepts like science (and dog and chair and ...) are the norm. But that doesn't mean we cannot distinguish science from non-science or pseudoscience, just as we generally do not go around sitting on dogs and taking chairs for walks, or at least not until our later years. Feynman's allusion to love is misguided since many concepts studied now by scientists in very precise ways were once only vaguely defined ... think temperature. Were the early researchers studying temperature, crudely defined (that feels hotter than it did before we ...), not doing science? I think psychology (or at least certain areas within psychology) does fairly well on certain aspects of science, notably with respect to testing hypotheses against observation, with careful attention to threats to the validity of our observations and inferences. I think we do less well in many areas with respect to specifying mechanistic models for our hypotheses and theoretical models. As we grow better at this aspect of science, psychology will become better able to see similarities and differences between macro-theories and in the process more of a unified discipline. And just to be clear, mechanistic models can be in terms of psychological constructs, not necessarily brain processes, although it should be somewhat clear that they might ultimately be realized in a biological system. Take care Jim Jim Clark Professor Chair of Psychology U Winnipeg Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax From: Christopher Green [chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: January-28-14 4:28 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology Here's a more recent clip of Feynman talking about social science. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IaO69CF5mbYdesktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIaO69CF5mbY He has a point, but he also seems to come from the Ernest Rutherford school of what counts as science (All science is physics, or it is stamp collecting.). The problem is (as I have debated many times on this forum) there is no set definition of science. Each science has its own standards of theory and evidence. For physics, the theory has to be mathematical and the measurements have to be very precise. In psychology, the theories are almost never mathematical (in part because the measurements are rarely very precise). The statistician Jacob Cohen once said (à propos of null hypothesis testing) that you're never going to get Newton's laws out of experiments that only predict, if I stretch it, it will get longer. He's right. On the other hand, you can't fault a science for doing the best it can with the intellectual tools that it currently has available. It is one thing to complain that we don't have theories that make point-estimate predictions. It is another thing entirely to produce such theories. Putting all this together into a coherent answer about whether (which part of?) psychology is a science s a very difficult thing. It is not as highly developed a science as physics, to be sure. Perhaps physics is the wrong model, though. Perhaps evolutionary science is the right model instead (William James and John Dewey thought so). Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree by modelling ourselves after other sciences. Perhaps there is another approach to science -- to the natures of theory and evidence, and the relations between them -- that will result in markedly better psychological understanding than we currently have. For over a century we have thought that we were only a decade or so from that new understanding. We haven't gotten there yet. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:37 PM, Michael Britt mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com wrote: Yes, he did appear to be deliberately jabbing Freudian theory, which is understandable, but I can see someone watching this section of the video and concluding from it that because we can't quantify love, psychology is ipso facto not a science. How would we defend psychology to Feynman (if he were still alive of course)? We could have acquainted him with behavioral methods of studying humans, which does allow for quantification, but how would we justify to him that we can study emotions? Michael Michael A. Britt, Ph.D. mich...@thepsychfiles.commailto:mich...@thepsychfiles.com http://www.ThePsychFiles.com Twitter: @mbritt On Jan 28, 2014, at 4:11 PM, Rick Stevens stevens.r...@gmail.commailto:stevens.r...@gmail.com wrote: It kind of sounded like he was criticizing Freudian theories rather than psychological
Re: [tips] Feynman on Psychology - ERROR IN COMMENT
It was in one of his late articles. In American Psychologist, I think. Might it have been in The Earth is Round, p.05”? I'll have to check. Chris ... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo On Jan 28, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Mike Palij m...@nyu.edu wrote: I had a momentary psychotic break with reality and left *NOT* in one of the sentences I wrote. Below is the corrected text. Apologies to Chris and anyone else. On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:43:34 -0800, Mike Palij wrote: I was going to sit this thread out but I'm curious about Chris' source for Jack Cohen's statement. I'm *NOT* challenging that Jack might have said something like that, I just want to know the source. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92n=Tl=tipso=33627 or send a blank email to leave-33627-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=33632 or send a blank email to leave-33632-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
