----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Britt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 10:33 AM
Subject: [tips] Philosophical differences?
In the latest episode of my podcast I discuss our tendency to put more
meaning into coincidence than really is there. I discussed a little
probability and a little critical thinking. I then interviewed a Jungian
analyst who explained what Jung meant by the term "Synchronicity".
In all honesty, I don't think he came off looking too good and I'm
wondering if I did him a disservice by not pointing out to the listeners
that our (Western) way of thinking is based on empiricism and that this
mode of thought is different than the tradition Jung came from. I have to
admit though that the philosophical underpinnings of Jung's thinking is
not my forte. We all want students to be critical thinkers, but I also
want them to appreciate different modes of thinking.
Can anyone give me a little insight on this issue? Perhaps the psych
historians in our group?
Michael
--
One of the problems with the independent-dependent variable
relationship as cherished in Western science
is that it fails to take into consideration the complex interactional
factors embedded in those variables.The IV
tends to rob the real content of the experience.IVs do not exist by
themselves. Psychology is trying to be a
Physics wannabe.What Jung brings about is an
archaeological,anthropological,and cultural milieu to explain
phenomena.The Eiropean tradition has been more philosophical and
cultural.One of the problems with
education in American society is that we have become too visual which can be
in opposition to thinking.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
