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:
"Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 20:52:31 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2702 bytes) , text/html (5 kB)
Hi Martin,

  Thanks for your note. I certainly agree that there are important differences between difference sciences in the kind of knowledge claims they can make and the kind of predictions that can be produced. Predictions of “low base rate” phenomena are always difficult. I don’t think that biologists, for example, would be good at predicting which cell of a group of vulnerable cells might actually become cancerous. Rather, we can predict rates in aggregate populations.

You raised the issue of “free will.” As this blog I did a while ago notes, I consider myself a “compatibilist.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201308/degrees-freedom
I am not a fan of the philosophical-libertarian view of free will. However, I do argue that there is a self-consciousness/personhood system that plays a role in regulating behavior and that folks can be held responsible or accountable for their actions.

  I also believe that there is a complicated relationship between scientific explanations and the behavior of persons. Here is a blog I did analyzing the problem of “the double hermeneutic” and applying it to ADHD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201312/adhd-and-the-problem-the-double-hermeneutic

Sorry if this is kind of a shotgun reply, but I am not sure if I was fully clear on what you were after.

Warm regards,
Gregg


>>>

Thanks Greg for your explanation. I wanted to respond to the recent comments, and refer to your scheme, but I did not know quite how to do it. I hope others understand just how your explanation is relevant to how they use words. I might add about my reference to science. My intent was to say something about how some scientist get into the hubris of believing they know The Truth, which is different than the accuracy of many observations. And any physical scientist claiming their tools are the only way to do science. I would say causality is different in the social sciences. We can explain, have explanations that give an understanding but we cannot predict exactly what will happen like can be predicted about throwing a ball up in the air.. for every Mass killer there are thousands of  people who have the same Dynamics but it cannot be predicted which one will act out this way. One issue of Behavior is "free will" that vague issue. Thanks for following my comment. I would be interested in any criticism of these ideas. Martin Johnson.

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

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