Hi Waldemar,
These are some of the foundational questions that philosophy (and subsequently psychology) has struggled with since folks were asking questions about them. The relation of mind and matter or of people and things and how we talk about them is fraught with endless loops and disagreements and so forth. The purpose of the ToK is to provide a field/system/map that at least grounds us and allows us to locate what the issues are. For example, it immediately highlights that reason giving is something that is uniquely human and points to the behavior of persons as a function of reasons/and reason giving being differently constituted than things like rocks that of course have no reasons (in the human sense) for their actions.
I will let Blaine speak for himself, but I am guessing that his point is fundamentally connected to a philosophically refined view that differentiates causes and reasons as a function of key implications about the differences between things and people.
I am guessing strongly that Blaine would agree that reasons have causal consequences. How folks justify their actions to me and vice versa play a crucial role in what follows; this is so obvious as to not need much justification.
And we can see that in unrefined common language, the two terms (reason and cause) are clearly connected. It would not be unusual for two police offers to arrive at a murder scene and have the following conversation:
“I have a body over here,” says Officer A.
“I have one over here. A woman,” says Officer B.
“This one is a man. Shot in the back.”
“Same reason for death here; only she was shot in the heart from the front.”
“From this looks of it, the cause was a jilted lover.”
So in unrefined language, cause and reason are closely intertwined. Philosophers, keen on trying to disentangle underlying meanings, have often debated if reasons that people give for their actions are causes and in what ways are they causes like, say a shot to the heart causes death, and what ways are they different. Some folks advocate for a strong differentiation. Some, like Donaldson do see reasons as causes in the technical philosophical sense.
I will let Blaine take it up from here if he wants.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 6:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is a theory in psychology?
I’m respectfully seeking some help.
Are thoughts causes of behavior?
Even if one considers thought (mental activity) a behavior?
And how are reasons not causal of human behavior?
Is this a semantic differentiation?
If reasons and thoughts do not “cause” behavior, then what does?
Please excuse my philosophical naïvete.
I sense this is an important discussion and I want to apprehend both sides.
Best regards,
Waldemar
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
On Apr 22, 2018, at 12:26 PM, Fowers, Blaine J <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Gregg, John, and everyone,
Of course, I agree with both of you that cause-effect relations are a good way to describe the physical universe. But I don't think causal language is anywhere near sufficient to describe the human world. I see the human world as constituted by reasoning beings, and that that reasoning capacity is an emergent reality dependent on evolution. I suggest that once our ancestors developed the capacities of language, temporal awareness, prospective thinking, and ethical-mindedness, a new form of activity became possible--that of the self-interpreting being.
Gregg, you said, "the reasons we have for our behavior play a big role in causing our behavior." If you had said that the reasons play a big role in constituting our behavior, we'd be in agreement. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy the idea that reasons are causes. That seems incoherent to me. I think reasons are chosen on the basis of worthiness, and that worthiness is itself built on other reasons in a hermeneutic circle (rather than a vicious circle) within a historical community. In your terms, it's a justification system. I assert that the human world is interpretation all the way down with humans rather than a cause-effect chain from bottom to top.
If folks want to continue to use Kuhnian language despite the looseness and potential for confusion, that's up to you. I think that buys far more trouble than is worth the minor gains of the terminology. But that's just one person's opinion.
As always, I like your analysis of science as a justification system, Gregg. It's way more insightful than the standard scientific narrative, especially about human as scientists and with respect to human science.
Blaine
Blaine J. Fowers, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Educational and
Psychological Studies
Merrick 312
5202 University Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-284-5261 (o)
305-284-3003 (f)
Frailty, Suffering, and Vice: Flourishing in the Face of Human Limitations<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.apa.org_pubs_books_4317447.aspx&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=X9vqsTayp_5DqC7KqFPFK_8QLyVAPZC0-3sayVXbq6o&e=>
The Evolution of Ethics<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.palgrave.com_us_book_9781137344656-23otherversion-3D9781349466139&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=dQ_8gKM51zCJA3W-kdaj2ZX0TiCrZoZexSCZFxVPtNE&e=>
http://blainefowers.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blainefowers.com&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=jeKS2oWY_Mxiynr3YSA_5BWoZGWndJpeOZv5qaUjU6o&e=>
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2018 9:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What is a theory in psychology?
Hi Blaine,
Here are some reflections:
I generally agree with your point about causality, but would qualify it some. I believe that the universe we find ourselves in is an unfolding wave of cause-effect relationships. And atoms, cells, animals and people are all in that wave and part of it. So, I believe that my writing this email is “caused” in the broad sense of the word. It is not “uncaused.” Indeed, “uncaused” events do not make sense in my language game. That said, I completely agree with you and the hermeneuticists that we are self-aware and self-interpreting beings. This seems a clear empirical fact. And the reasons we have for our behavior play a big role in causing our behavior. This is also obvious (consider that the reasons that other people have for their actions play a big role in our actions). On the issue of agency, determinism, and compatibilism, I am a compatibilist who believes that agency is well-characterized by the concept of self-determination. That is, the concept of a person is a being who is a deliberative actor on a social stage. The behaviors that are legitimized and flow through the deliberative narrator are self-determined behaviors. Here is a blog I did on the concept of free will<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.psychologytoday.com-252Fus-252Fblog-252Ftheory-2Dknowledge-252F201308-252Fdegrees-2Dfreedom-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DkHrrsCYElsPw7RFsGB4E-252BZz5ke13KoLwk4tfplLAmaE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=XC1NA8nj7frxiCfW5EIwkI5GbxzNWBH4grmXkqCWGj0&e=>. Here is one on the concept of addiction that uses this framework to inform a way of thinking about substance dependence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.psychologytoday.com-252Fus-252Fblog-252Ftheory-2Dknowledge-252F201711-252Fis-2Daddiction-2Ddisease-2Dthe-2Dbrain-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3Dfmn-252F-252FG1Y1UNCcS8XIFEARiiC6Fh-252FVkwUXB2V9oLjrGs-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=_0gpSOhwc7r_4LL3_Fx9CLWI6yccLmiP77H5duaGYIQ&e=>.
I also agree with your point, Blaine, that Kuhn was “loose” in his analysis and use of the word paradigm. And his work is good for reflection and offers some cool analyses, but is not a strong, complete description of what is going on in science. But, as a tool to describe clusters of ideas that frame how folks see stuff, I like the concept of paradigm and use it quite a bit. (I think in a subsequent reflection, Kuhn acknowledged that there were 23 different ways he used the word paradigm…I need to check on this to confirm, but that is a vague memory).
And, yes, I agree with the remainder of you post. Science is a knowledge system---a system of justification. The scientific method was a great advance over the philosophical method. The latter was focused largely on coherence alone. That is, philosophers wondered and argued about what made sense. And they made lots of assumptions about what ought to have made sense that they did not check (like the idea that the earth was at the center of the universe). The scientists added the empirical method of systematic observation and the experimental testing of ideas. This was a great advance to our ability to build accurate systems of justification that mapped complexity and change. But it did not obviate the need for systems of justification. It simply added the correspondence dimension of truth analysis. That is, the systems of thought in science now needed to align with factual states of affairs, empirically examined. Put differently, sometimes scientists act as though science did away with philosophy. Instead, science is simply philosophy attached to the scientific method. Data are always being interpreted through a system of justification.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fowers, Blaine J
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 2:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What is a theory in psychology?
Hi All,
Gregg's fascinating post about theory, meta-theory, and metaphysics was sufficient to jolt me out of my lurkerhood on the list. Before I respond to his post, I want to echo others' sentiments about how wonderful it was for me to get together with and meet all of you. It was time very well spent.
I think the continuum that Gregg laid out is very useful, and I employ something very similar when I teach research methods to doctoral students (ppt. slide attached). It is enormously useful to be able to locate one's activities on such a continuum or hierarchy.
I have a couple of issues with what Gregg shared. I think they are important enough to alert folks to them, and you all can decide what to make of the questions I raise.
The first question is why theories have to be causal. I think the idea of causality as the exclusive form of explanation in human affairs is deeply problematic. I do recognize that causality plays a role in human action, but I don't think all human actions are due solely to causal forces. Some claim "mental causation," but that is a pretty fraught concept that I think does more conceptual damage than good. One point against exclusive causation is that the factors at play in human action are so complex that claiming straightforward causation for most actions is virtually impossible. Second, if human actions are entirely caused, that does not seem to leave room for agency, something to which I know that Gregg and many others are committed. More importantly, hermeneuticists have argued (very persuasively imho) that humans are self-interpreting beings. This means that we are partly constituted by the ways we understand ourselves. If those understandings are changed (i.e., reinterpreted), our identities and actions change as well. From this viewpoint, humans action is constitutively related to one's self-understanding and a constitutive relation differs significantly from a causal one. This is a very complex question that I am simplifying here for the sake of brevity. Tons of ink has been spilled on the question of causality. But I thin each of us has to pick a side on this question (roughly, agency, determinism, or compatibilism).
A second question is the use of Kuhnian language of "paradigms" and "normal science". After reading a fair amount of contemporary philosophy of science, I've concluded that those are very problematic terms. Kuhn is a very important figure, but he did not define those terms very carefully, and his usage was pretty sloppy. He was extremely influential with his primary idea that the history of science has to play a significant role in any valuable philosophy of science, but few, if any, philosophers use his nomenclature to analyze science. Instead of "paradigm" I would recommend something like "scientific praxis or practice". The term paradigm is often used in psychology to describe a much lower level of scientific practice: a particular approach to a research topic, as in "the minimal group paradigm" that guides studies of intergroup relations.
Third, I want to make something explicit that I believe is implicit in Gregg's post. There is no defensible strict separation between data and theory (i.e., there is no theory-neutral data language--all data are identified and delimited by theory). That data-theory separation is a ghostly remnant of logical positivism that still has a lot of influence in psychology, but has been entirely debunked in the philosophy of science. It may be an obvious point to this group, but it's not obvious to most psychologists. Gregg is explicitly and expertly making an analogous point that there is no metaphysics-free theory either. Most psychologists don't think they have to address metaphysics at all, and consequently operate with metaphysics by fiat.
Finally, as you may know about me by now, I find it important to point out that the entire continuum (or hierarchy) of science is imbued with moral import and serves the human project of seeking knowledge (a key human good). This wasn't mentioned, but I know Gregg understands this (albeit perhaps a little differently than I do). It's just another thing I think is important to make explicit because the assumption of the fact-value dichotomy is so pervasive and powerful.
All the best,
Blaine
Blaine J. Fowers, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Educational and
Psychological Studies
Merrick 312
5202 University Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33146
305-284-5261 (o)
305-284-3003 (f)
Frailty, Suffering, and Vice: Flourishing in the Face of Human Limitations<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.apa.org-5Fpubs-5Fbooks-5F4317447.aspx-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw-2526s-253DOXLH06XDiSA4Q0oeDXUJD0pMecaOUDYDQ8GZxktRZhA-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DHx7GdAwIWscSsFakjxVQkHShLPI67xWCW5qhtZ80UE8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=pD5qD1Pz8TDwSgnn-eO9SMEtjSpWv_P3xfAq884MsBE&e=>
The Evolution of Ethics<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.palgrave.com-5Fus-5Fbook-5F9781137344656-2D23otherversion-2D3D9781349466139-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw-2526s-253DtdbeydAub7mJZ7ezPPKBF8jeNO-2DuvH-2DXiMMM63Bmw7g-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DsE42t9w3ic6EFphpdGhR8nCVs6Yj15reKwpsgKnx6ao-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=11M9pyyEGip5R9wyoYKxYeDjEiQKlG5znq4U1wU5KXM&e=>
http://blainefowers.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttp-2D3A-5F-5Fblainefowers.com-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw-2526s-253DlIA3qSZZsJEzVLmNIviK9ov0A27R8-5FkLLWFSEqd-5Fk90-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DaxHxgUwTDsiOAr1miGWM9NhVmH9bQ6bcXorqUMjO-252FgY-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=2_uVCGJFM2L3QSdxC-1fT0y-Mr6kYAoEq_8AZopMp_E&e=>
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: What is a theory in psychology?
Thanks to Waldemar and Nancy for raising these important issues. The way we “talk” about these issues are crucial, so I very much appreciate this exchange.
I am in general agreement with what you write below, Nancy. What I am offering the field can legitimately be characterized as a framework. My caveat is that I would add the word “meta-theoretical” in front of that word. BIT, the JH, and the Matrix are all meta-theoretical frameworks. I believe this is an important addition because it emphasizes that the framework is not offered willy-nilly, but instead is a tapestry of established ideas. But as long as we are clear about that, I will say that I am ok with framework. Indeed, I have tentatively titled the book I am working on The UTUA Framework: A New Vision for Psychology and Psychotherapy.
My hope is that we could all be clear about what exactly this means. For me, I prefer to think about these issues in terms of a continuum along a level of analysis that stretches from “zooming in” on a particular phenomena or event, to zooming out, ultimately ending at the concepts and categories one is using to map reality. Something along the lines of the following:
<image001.jpg>
Mainstream psychology emphasizes the right side of this continuum:
<image002.png>
Consider, for example, prior to my forays into meta theory, I did my masters research on ethnic and gender differences in body image. The paradigm I used in that research (which really was implicit) was the mainstream social cognitive and methodological behavioral paradigm (i.e., Albert Bandura’s version of reality). I used principles of learning, social influence and attribution to make predictions about the way men and women and individuals of diverse ethnic backgrounds would feel and think about their bodies.
However, as we are all well aware by now, I found myself returning again and again to the issue of the paradigms. Why did we have to start there? And why were they different? How did they relate to each other? Was there a way to get them to be harmonized? This was particularly a prominent issue in the clinic room, when one had psychodynamic, experiential, family systems, and CBT “voices” in one’s head (among others) each of which was offering different emphases, languages, ideas for intervention, and desired outcomes/valued states of being, which I experienced as chaotic.
And so I started my adventures in constructing the unified “theory,” where I was focused more and more on the left side of the continuum. When I wrote the book, A New Unified Theory of Psychology, I was definitely oriented toward thinking of that as an exercise in “meta-theory.” That is, the system allowed us a framework to organize the paradigms and other big ideas into a coherent system. BIT, JH, and the Matrix are meta-theoretical frameworks.
<image003.png>
Over the past three or four years, I have become convinced that there is the final, most abstract layer, that of concepts and categories that carve up reality. Although I only rarely used the term five years ago, several years ago, I came to see this concept and category dimension as “metaphysics” and realized that the ToK is a new metaphysical system. This popped for me when I was reading Koons and Pickavance (2014) instruction to metaphysics, which they stated that metaphysics is about understanding:
the fundamental structure of reality as a whole. How do things fit together in the world? Plato describes this task of philosophy as “carving nature at the joints,” comparing metaphysics to a skillful and knowledgeable act of dissection. Here are four relations that seem to be among the fundamental relations of this worldly structure: the relation between things and their properties, between wholes and parts, between causes and effects, and things related to each other in space and in time.
This is very much what the ToK System is about. And I realized that I was very focused on the problem of psychology because I was very focused on developing a framework/meta-theoretical system that had the correct definitional structure. It is crucial that we have shared meanings of the terms psychology, behavior, mind, and persons (relative to animals).
Bottom line, I see the unified theory as a metaphysical (ToK), meta-theoretical (BIT/Matrix/JH) framework (that connects to empirical observations, which is, of course, crucial). It should be taken seriously because it is the only system that solves the (metaphysical) problem of psychology. And it is up to the task of providing us a language game/system/framework that can describe, explain, and predict human behavior (see Joe’s most recent post on the science of talking).
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Link
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: What is a theory in psychology?
Dear Waldemar,
Thank you for your inquiry. Your question has helped me to clarify my own thinking. My question includes both components.
Regarding building knowledge within the ToK system: The core problem is that psychology does not have a theory describing human functioning. As Gregg has so eloquently pointed out, this is a matter of serious concern. I think that Gregg’s ToK system makes important inroads into this problem, but from my perspective it offers a framework for understanding human functioning rather than a theory. For me, a theory describes in detail the linkages between concepts. For example, Gregg says that his Behavioral investment Theory is make up of 6 principles: 1) energy economics 2) evolution 3) genetics 4) neuro-computational control 5) learning and 6) development. I completely agree. But for me, a theory has to describe how these things meaningfully interconnect. In my opinion, Gregg’s ToK system lays the groundwork but does not do all interconnecting that needs to be done in order for a theory to emerge.
Regarding how to “justify” this system to those who question the ToK validity: I think that Gregg’s ToK system was built with strong, science informed and experienced informed intuitions about how humans function. Knowledge-building begins with intuition. It then involves building a model and putting it out in the public domain and seeing if the ideas of others cohere. That is why I think that the difference between the terms “theory" and “ framework" are important. A “theory" activates justification of ones own position relative to others. A “framework" is more welcoming. It offers other ideas a place at the table.
I don’t know if Gregg sees his system as a theory or a framework, and (I realize now) that I have some self-interest in asking the question.
Sincerely,
Nancy
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Friday, April 20, 2018 at 5:41 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: Thanks to all who made the conference a success
Nancy:
May I ask a question about that which you are discussing with Gregg?
In particular, I am interested in your query: One thing I have been wondering about is how you envision building knowledge within your ToK system?
Are you asking about how the collection of knowledge in ToK is or is going to be organized?
Or, are you asking about how a reply is (or replies are) going to be structured so as to provide answers or responses to those who question the ToK (ie: how do you argue to the outside world that your intuitions are better that theirs?)?
Best regards,
Waldemar
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
On Apr 17, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Gregg,
I returned feeling upbeat and very stimulated intellectually. It was good to get out of the confines of my Toronto home office and experience the welcoming warmth of you, the other ToKers and the whole JMU community. THANK YOU!!!
One thing I have been wondering about is how you envision building knowledge within your ToK system? I think that we have strong negative reactions to scientific thought as it is currently practiced, but we may have different ways of reacting to that negative feeling. My feeling is that scientific thought has taken over too much of the dialogue. Experts use the “data shows that…”argument to silence opposition. The truth is that the data seldom show anything with absolute clarity. It is not surprising that ordinary people have given up on science and stopped listening. My solution to this problem is to try to contain science by putting it in balance with a narrative. I believe that the narrative (theory) can only be built using data. Once we have a narrative, we can use new data to refine or change the it, but without a narrative, we are at sea.
My impression of your negative reaction to the same reality is to blast through it with your strong and good intuitions about how things fit together. I like and trust your intuitions, but how do you argue to the outside world that your intuitions are better that theirs?
Nancy
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Gregg Henriques <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:30 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Thanks to all who made the conference a success
Dear TOK Society,
I am writing to offer deep gratitude to all those who came and participated in the first ever TOK Society conference over the weekend. I thought the talks were splendid. The breadth of ideas covered was huge and yet they did seem to cohere around key themes and pointed to future directions for education, psychology and society at large. I also found the conversation on the back half of Friday to be very stimulating and demonstrated how thinking about big TOKs could illuminate powerful perspectives on real world issues.
I will be in consultation with folks about next steps. One thing I would like to consider is having folks share their powerpoints on the list and perhaps have some time devoted to reviewing the talks and engaging in some exchange about them on this list.
Thanks again to everyone.
Best,
Gregg
___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.
Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fwww.psychologytoday.com-5Fblog-5Ftheory-2D2Dknowledge-2526d-253DDwMF-2Dg-2526c-253DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn-5F5nBEmmeq0-2526r-253DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-2DUOpybo6Cfxxz-2DjIYBgjO2gOz4-2DA-2526m-253DJuk60hGu1CZhdxRJtBM7WIs6w-5F5lt2vuWHMjngCjLqY-2526s-253DRmWJ8gbPqrT25c6lk-5FwlXp7aiI0wwyVvlnjeGNCtY-5FI-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DIjSopDIwLLAuW1NLGQd34z0o86rLsqlL5N3Y-252FjNvqYc-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DMJ6PQoYo2fCRFbKHRlbE9nfR0sG2giNofaj4MOhoGn0%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=cCRRsqg8pA1HZlhvCWQUWIf5F0xEDOJ3Esw1oSGKaDI%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DbaS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=nedVMVQnm87WIU01lXOs3wvC6M6bqeZoj9rkUD1zcKg%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DbaS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=nedVMVQnm87WIU01lXOs3wvC6M6bqeZoj9rkUD1zcKg%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DbaS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=nedVMVQnm87WIU01lXOs3wvC6M6bqeZoj9rkUD1zcKg%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DbaS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=nedVMVQnm87WIU01lXOs3wvC6M6bqeZoj9rkUD1zcKg%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C1947fd3290e940ce75ef08d5a7a06b71-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636599229858866141-26sdata-3DNZb3LWsDq7gjg9GMEfB3-252FoPRE9S7C0TMKU8gr-252BOQp6o-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMF-g%26c%3DeLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0%26r%3DHPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A%26m%3DUAdr2iOXgnfyzNtvcCoiLvHR4iXMVcVE3hENtxeQNxw%26s%3DbaS2Rq4B_HfIx8IXMBTjlU_qMCgOycFX5ft0HQhS-oY%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cbfowers%40MIAMI.EDU%7C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa%7C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33%7C0%7C0%7C636600000587579575&sdata=nedVMVQnm87WIU01lXOs3wvC6M6bqeZoj9rkUD1zcKg%3D&reserved=0>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DagFhaP3Iku09Pz7bPu5n2zWXqr2WKLk03OlSlxHr44A-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=QYG1RySn40DvN_s6hUCFN2wGzuiHGM-gOAGCrTOWs-M&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cbfowers-2540MIAMI.EDU-257C3ca1308e973f4578ee1208d5a853e0fa-257C2a144b72f23942d48c0e6f0f17c48e33-257C0-257C0-257C636600000587579575-26sdata-3DagFhaP3Iku09Pz7bPu5n2zWXqr2WKLk03OlSlxHr44A-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2B5xKWOyUQ3TNf0RutDo3-_b4ube_TB1kHo7lbkhutA&s=QYG1RySn40DvN_s6hUCFN2wGzuiHGM-gOAGCrTOWs-M&e=>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
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
|
