Joe, Gregg, et al, 

Understanding that ALL of us are really quite busy, it seems that virtually everyone on this list walks right by what the Digital Paradigm is (not a language game): replace the humans! In other words, Social Science has not only failed, but it has been dispensed with as not being able to deal with the "complexity" of humans and the "chaos" of the world, so to "save" the world we must cut out reliance on humans for decision-making, not merely labor. This is reflected in our use of the word "Nature" rather than "God," "Creator," "Providence," "Judge," and so on. 

We live in a ubiquitous environment of algorithms/machines/robots. As the AI scientist/advocator Kai Fu Lee notes in his recent book, AI Superpowers, programs/devices will be able to do everything better and more efficiently than humans. This is how the youngest and yet born do and will learn for generations. This is how their perceptions are created and their soul/psyche formed, which then leads to the "use" of their reason/intellect. So, for years before they ever get to "higher education" or therapy, they have personalities and worldviews based upon the techno-psycho environment they were emersed in (psyche/soul) all day every day of their lives from day one. 

Gregg has suggested that we live in a world of disordered souls and that he believes this is going to get worse, thus the need for a new field of psychology. Do the hard sciences or social sciences have answers for this based upon Aristotelian "Causes?"  No. "Answers" are put forward based upon moralism and making better "choices" and probabilities. Several recent books have come out about just how far we have moved away from "causes" as the explanation for anything, not least of which is by a scientist involved with AI, Judea Pearl in his The Book of Why. 

If there are "brilliant" young scholars in the Social Sciences that have figured out what has happened to humans in light of the Printing Press, Electricity and Digital and are offering bold new lines to take over their disciplines and Education in the "context" of robots, and the end of Democracy, I look forward to learning about them and talking with them. 

Jeffrey A. Martineau
Vice President for Development
Center for the Study of Digital Life
New York City

202.413.4542

www.digitallife.center


On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 7:33 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Joe:

> Apart from the sheer hubris and arrogance of such statements, they 
> are factually incorrect and philosophically dubious, at best. I know 
> of literally
> hundreds of outstanding social scientists and philosophers whose work clearly
> contradicts such statements. I don’t have time to debate these 
> issues further, however, as I’m busy . . .

Really . . . ??

I'm glad that you "get a kick" out of all the time that I've spent 
with this group and, guess what, I'm "busy" also . . . <g>

"Factually incorrect"?  Please explain what you mean.

"Philosophically dubious"?  Please explain what you mean.

"Clearly contradicts such statements"?  Please explain what you mean.

Or not.  Have a nice day.

Mark

P.S. As you know well, the accusation of "arrogance and hubris" is 
commonly leveled against Gregg Henriques, himself.  Or, alternately, 
what he is doing is "bold and innovative."  Take your pick.

Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear ToK Colleagues:
>
> A brief story first. We were a vibrant, diverse group of graduate 
> students at the University of Virginia back in the 1980s. We played 
> football late Friday afternoons and then frequented one of several 
> eateries and pubs on The Corner for an evening of music and 
> intellectual discussions. We debated and, at times, harassed each 
> other. Those of us who were committed to “science” and our 
> humanities colleagues had many debates about the nature of our 
> scholarship. We were criticized, usually playfully, of being 
> “narrow-minded positivists” who were seeking “control” and 
> “hegemony” with our work (no matter how “open-minded” we thought we 
> were in discussing philosophy and epistemology). In turn, we teased 
> our humanities colleagues about their upcoming doctoral defenses 
> with questions like, “Why worry? After all, you can never really be 
> wrong, can you? It’s all a matter of interpretation.” And this was 
> at least a decade before the Sokol hoax.
>
> In time, we all learned from each other and grew in our 
> understanding of the variegated nature of truth systems and 
> epistemological frameworks. I’ll only speak for myself here, though, 
> by suggesting that I came to fully embrace the “many ways of 
> knowing” philosophy, which, I should mention in the interest of full 
> disclosure, extends beyond science. The important point I would make 
> about the various truth systems and narratives, though, would be 
> that the credibility of arguments, evidence, and methodology should 
> correspond with appropriate evaluation methods of competing claims. 
> Within each field or discipline, there are indeed standards of 
> excellence – and that’s presumably why we have everything from 
> peer-reviewed journals to exams for degrees and professional 
> accreditation. When the latest trio of academicians pulled off their 
> coup as “grievance scholars” in getting a half dozen or more 
> articles published in peer-reviewed journals in a year’s time, then 
> that tells me that there are some real problems or weaknesses in the 
> extant standards and/or review process associated with those 
> journals. And, I suspect, there will always be more “problems” or 
> challenges with humanities-based journals because of the nature of 
> the work and what constitutes credible evidence (see above). If 
> these scholars, however, were able to pull off the same feat and get 
> published in the top sociology journals (e.g., American Sociological 
> Review, American Journal of Sociology or Sociological  Theory), then 
> I’d be even more worried about sociology as a discipline – and I’d 
> be the first to turn the critical lens on what the heck they are 
> doing with those journals. Ditto for the top psychology or physics 
> journals.
>
> That said, the new wave of young scholars entering academia are, as 
> a whole, brilliant. We’ve hired about two dozen new PhDs in our 
> university across about a dozen departments in the humanities and 
> social sciences, as well as business and social work in the last few 
> years. We are hardly a top-tier university, but almost every single 
> one of them is outstanding and already reasonably accomplished in 
> their young careers. I can only imagine what the top universities 
> must be attracting. In fact, compared to “the old folks” in our 
> university – and I’m clearly one of them – the new generation is 
> better prepared, more ambitious, and far more open (and collegial) 
> to everything from cutting-edge ideas within their fields to a 
> willingness to tackle issues both pedagogically and in their 
> research from cross- or inter-disciplinary perspectives. I’ve never 
> been more optimistic about the potential for innovative research and 
> intellectual breakthroughs than I am now, as I’ve seen our 
> university move through such an exciting transition with so many 
> energetic, thoughtful, and engaging young scholars.
>
> And that’s where I will end by having to disagree with Mark’s 
> commentary. I have been patient with the standard disciplinary ad 
> hominem attacks about the social sciences, in part because there’s a 
> kernel of truth in the critique. Plus, Mark, I actually get a kick 
> out of some of your commentary, as I can certainly laugh at myself 
> (plus, are you the intelligent "Forrest Gump" of the intellectual 
> world, showing up at just the right historical moments with every 
> important development and thinker of the past half century?)!
>
> Most important, technology clearly does have an important role to 
> play in studying changes in human – and other – forms of behavior. 
> We have clear evidence of massive changes in everything from daily 
> patterns of social interaction (e.g., Marlowe et al. 2017), to 
> mental health and psychological well-being (e.g., Shensa et al. 
> 2016), to the impact on brain development (e.g., Crone and Konijn). 
> Mark and Jeff are entirely correct in recognizing the importance of 
> the digital revolution, which a great many of us have been arguing 
> represents the defining revolution at least as important (I think 
> even moreso) as the “industrial revolution” or the printing press. 
> And Mark’s certainly right in suggesting too that we “don’t have to 
> remember anything anymore.” All of these ideas and impacts must be 
> incorporated into our thinking and theorizing, in my view, if we are 
> to develop more comprehensive explanations of “where we are” and 
> “where we are going.” The digital revolution, like the industrial 
> revolution, encapsulates a vast array of social, economic, 
> political, and even spiritual changes, however, which leads me to my 
> final point.
>
> I would caution that monocausal theories never hold up well in the 
> social sciences, as the history of social science has demonstrated 
> repeatedly. Technology’s one important factor, but by no means the 
> only or even the most important factor (and, no, that’s not the only 
> argument Mark’s making). Hence Mark’s statement that the social 
> sciences lack a proper understanding of causality is not only 
> unhelpful, but simply “wrong.” He writes: “No current social science 
> can provide that understanding (of causality).  That is why they all 
> need to be replaced.  Every single one of them. Without a thorough 
> understanding of how technology *formally* causes us to behave as we 
> do -- which, in turn, requires an understanding of Aristotle's 
> Causes (not Plato's Forms) -- the headlines will continue to baffle 
> (and, for some, bemuse) . . . !!” Apart from the sheer hubris and 
> arrogance of such statements, they are factually incorrect and 
> philosophically dubious, at best. I know of literally hundreds of 
> outstanding social scientists and philosophers whose work clearly 
> contradicts such statements. I don’t have time to debate these 
> issues further, however, as I’m busy: a) attempting to do the best 
> social scientific work possible (i.e., developing explanatory 
> theories of human social behaviors that correspond most closely with 
> current and future evidence) and building a healthy, vibrant, 
> engaged university (which I’ve been told offline is basically 
> impossible and “part of the problem”). All that said, I take to 
> heart the criticisms of what we in the academy are doing. I will not 
> engage in a further defense of the academy, however, but merely 
> suggest that I and many others I work with here consistently embrace 
> technological, administrative, pedagogical, and intellectual changes 
> that aim to improve what we are doing. It’s a never-ending process. 
> The reason for my optimism, however, reflects my earlier 
> observations about the innovative, open-minded, and brilliant young 
> people we’ve been attracting to the academy in recent years. Thus 
> the culture wars will continue for many important reasons we can 
> continue to discuss, but I see what we’re doing with the ToK and 
> with the university system in general as “part of the solution.”
>
> Yours kindly, Joe
>
> P.S. - Do people really focus more on the "P.S." attached to messages?
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion 
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - 
> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 5, 2018 7:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Our divided country
>
>
> Hi List,
>
>   As I am sure you saw, Trump mocked Dr. Ford in his speech the 
> other night, to the applause of the crowd.
>
>
>
>   Today, there is the following article about academic hoaxers who 
> are following in the footsteps of Alan 
> Sokal<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Sokal-5Faffair&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9d946V5iAXSwK1S7o-zCbpyA_fZfM-ZYcOvKLtr3a9Y&s=5pPUf05uVeGJUYsxJB1rJuQso7mYvAq9jUd3qwD95D0&e=> (an event I covered in my final Fifth Joint Point chapter), and attempting to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of some of the social justice perspectives in the academy: 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nytimes.com_2018_10_04_arts_academic-2Djournals-2Dhoax.html-3Femc-3Dedit-5Fth-5F181005-26nl-3Dtodaysheadlines-26nlid-3D352238941005&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9d946V5iAXSwK1S7o-zCbpyA_fZfM-ZYcOvKLtr3a9Y&s=67xEdEy7wYbhtXWZW9UwCw24qLsOn8Ow9u8Z1tLb0KM&e=
>
>
>
>   I am sharing these two events for us to reflect on where we are in 
> terms of our social identity, and how to think about it. I think the 
> juxtaposition between these two events is striking. As Tom Friedman 
> put it a couple of days 
> ago<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nytimes.com_2018_10_02_opinion_the-2Damerican-2Dcivil-2Dwar-2Dpart-2Dii.html&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9d946V5iAXSwK1S7o-zCbpyA_fZfM-ZYcOvKLtr3a9Y&s=v14ec8ZgWFUCFomG7uShbvNe2uIbd-kSNzC13-BwsAU&e=> (American Civil War, Part II), we are about as ideologically divided as ever 
> before.
>
>
>
>   Given this, and our knowledge of psychology and sociology, what 
> might be some adaptive paths going forward?
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9d946V5iAXSwK1S7o-zCbpyA_fZfM-ZYcOvKLtr3a9Y&s=eeajn6EwpMXLrCYjoeCOCPireGGjQqBYu4EYRBmcxuM&e=
>
>
>
> Check out my webpage at:
>
> www.gregghenriques.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwIF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9d946V5iAXSwK1S7o-zCbpyA_fZfM-ZYcOvKLtr3a9Y&s=boj7ONbhhGp9805gosXiWlu-mEk6SDtU2gLKgweYXsc&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]
> 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
############################

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