TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

November 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
martin johnson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:29:40 -0400
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1499 bytes) , text/html (1718 bytes)
Gregg, excellent blog, presented in a way that the reader should ponder -- what is the science of psychology -- even, what is science. My first "comparison" is the experiment with pigeons (Scarf, 12-23-11, Science -- AAAS JOURNAL) They were trained on a task, then tested on a somewhat different difficult task -- with success --  that they could not succeed if they had not developed an abstract math principle -- they took in information, processed it in their brain, formed an understandintg to be applied to an unfamiliar situation. Pigeons and humans common ancestors are fish. Fish likely can abstract.  Because this is built into our genes, of course humans "perfected" the technique, and call it science. The physical sciences have the hubris to think "we invented science, and can tell others how to do science, and deny social sciences are science. The physical sciences have an absolute concept of determinism. Much of life cannot be predicted, but understanding afterwards can be given. Our psychological explanations are often "right on, and we can say many things about what a person is like. 

And Gregg, in your talk to the Visual....., that is an impressive set of visuals you have created. If your attachments had text, I did not find it.
Martin

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2