But behavior is just a reference system like any other one. The fact
that you BELIEVE in it makes your comments worth less than a scientist
who would try to build scientific (and so, falsifiable) theories in
the astrology field.
Pat
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.
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> MK.
>
