Hi The various versions of these quotes appear to misunderstand several aspects of science.
First, the underestimate the importance of observation to theory. The former constrain the latter, and theory without data to fit is vacuous. Darwin's Origin of Species is essentially a massive collection of observations that he wove into an elegant theory based on a small number of principles, as also exemplified by a number of his other writings. Even as abstract a thinker as Einstein spoke positively about the importance of observations in some of his writings. And of course there are the innumerable negative examples of theory only loosely connected to observation, such as Freud. Second, they ignore the possibility of theories at different levels of analysis that are compatible with one another and yet all deserve to be called scientific. Again, to stick with evolution as an example, Darwin's principles continue to be an accurate characterization of the process, although the mechanisms can now be specified in much finer detail at different levels of analysis. And in psychology, explanations in terms of psychological processes can be more or less correct, with the correct theories continuing to be correct even given more molecular explanations in terms of neuronal activity. That is molar theories can be realized in terms of more molecular processes, although the latter may not be necessary for certain purposes or for the correctness of the former to be determined. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology and Chair 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected] >>> Michael Palij <[email protected]> 07-Aug-12 8:17 am >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:10:17 -0700, Michael Britt wrote: > >Great quote Chris: "Everything is physics, or it is stamp collecting." Rutherford's quote prompts for me a memory of something that Noam Chomsky said about Bloomfieldian linguistics which I think can be characterized as being primarily empirical, descriptive, and behaviorist. Chomsky, in characteristic form, I believe dismissed most of this type of linguistic analysis and research (as he would Skinnerian analysis a la "Verbal Behavior" and information theory models of sentence, both of which can be considered types of associate chain models). Chomsky emphasized the role of theory over empirical research, a position that he seems to maintain today. Chomsky's syntactic theories were to be an advance over Bloomfieldian linguistics in that he had formulated a mathematical theory (based on concepts from automata theory) that allegedly showed how the infinite number of sentences humans can produce could be explained by a relatively simple theory. The Chomsky was wrong in this has been shown by his rejection of his own early theories and the modifications he has had to make to his later theories -- all to keep his theory of language deterministic (instead of probabilistic) and uniquely human. Anyway, more to the point, I recall Chomsky saying something like linguistics before his theories were like stamp collecting while his work was, well, real science. I don't remember where I had read this since this was easily a couple of decades ago but a Google search does turn up a comparable statement by Chomsky in the context of a rather interesting article by Peter Norvig; see: http://norvig.com/chomsky.html I quote a relevant passage: |On the other side, Ernest Rutherford (physicist, 1871*1937) disdained |mere description, saying "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." |Chomsky stands with him: "You can also collect butterflies and make |many observations. If you like butterflies, that's fine; but such work must |not be confounded with research, which is concerned to discover explanatory |principles." However, as Norvig points out, there is much more going on than is dreamt of in Chomsky's philosophy, some of which is widely if unknowingly used, say, when we use Google. Read the article for indications. And there are a couple of great uses of the "Two Cultures" metaphor, specifically by Leo Berman. -MIke Palij New York University [email protected] On Aug 6, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Christopher Green wrote: > On 2012-08-06, at 8:28 AM, Michael Britt wrote: >> Seems like psychology has become quite the easy target these days. Sad. >> >> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713,0,1641705.story > > Kiss up. Kick down. No accident it was a biologist. Each discipline most > despises the one just below it on the putative hierarchy of the sciences. > That's how they maintain their own status. (Psychologists do it to > sociologists too, for the same reason.) I wonder what this guy has to say > about Ernest Rutherford's (in-)famous claim: "Everything is physics, or it is > stamp collecting." --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=19535 or send a blank email to leave-19535-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=19543 or send a blank email to leave-19543-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
