On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:23:57 +0200, Bouh wrote:
>But behavior is just a reference system like any other one. The fact
>that you BELIEVE in it makes your comments worth less than
>who would try to build scientific (and so, falsifiable) theories in
>the astrology field.
>>On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:52:55 -0400, "Glen M. Sizemore"
><gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>No, it is time to revitalize the philosophy that holds that behavior is the
>>proper subject matter of psychology (not events that are said to be
>>"operationally defined" by behavior), and that once you know what real
>>behavioral processes are, you might be able to find out how they are
>>mediated by physiology.
>>>>"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <m.kirkcaldie at removethis.unsw.edu.au> wrote in message
>>news:m.kirkcaldie-49861F.12264017102004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...>>> In article <73+1ikCOsPcBFwrM at longley.demon.co.uk>,
>>> David Longley <David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> > The extent of the
>>> > mythology created by "the decade of the brain" and its funding over the
>>> > past decade is both staggering and worrying. "Cognitive neuroscience"
>>> > (which isn't a soft-science but pseudo-science for reasons I've tried to
>>> > explain elsewhere) is metaphysics and is having pernicious consequences
>>> > through shaping public policies in areas where it has absolutely nothing
>>> > to contribute (e.g education) over traditional, more conservative
>>> > practices. Market forces are more likely to drive out conservative,
>>> > realistic scientific practices as the latter are far less popular,
>>> > "promising" and "comprehensible" to the majority. The problem is wider
>>> > than science of course.
>>>>>> Those words give me a chill of recognition - after all, who needs to do
>>> the expensive work of *understanding* anything, if we can look at a
>>> pretty picture and pretend we know?
>>>>>> My wife works in speech pathology and has often come away from
>>> "professional development" sessions, open-mouthed at the kind of rubbish
>>> being pushed because "brain research" says it's true. Her colleagues
>>> have been a little suspicious of her when she actually seeks out
>>> evidence before forming an opinion.
>>>>>> Maybe it's time for a revival of vitalism.