I guess Science and Philosophy have not always been the best of friends. Karl Popper is even rejected by the main body of philosophers, presumably because his ideology - his paradigm of reality differed from theirs, but he's widely embraced by the vast body of .........Philosophers of Science. Is that even a real job? - Maybe it's a job like Theologists. (Calculate the number of angels on the head of a pin. Report to 3 significant places)  

In science, we formulate hypotheses. Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it)  Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

The question of Science and Philosophy puts me in mind of this anecdote which I heard many years ago, but Google has a source for it (whether it's the original source or not). So I've cut and pasted it to save the typing:


Quote:

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: Answer: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, " it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a Divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God." This student received the only "A" mark.

Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it)  Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science. ... Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong.

Generally? I'd say invariably.  The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not.

Not testable =/= hypothesis
Testable =  falsifiable.

therefore
not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis




Fail.


Phil 101

It shouldn't be science versus philosophy, rather, they ought to (and do) compliment each other. But ultimately, philosophy precedes science. Science can't ask why something should be studied, observed, and experimented with without resorting to philosophy. Science can't ask why it does what it does without resorting to philosophy. It all begins in abstractions.

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:25am:

muso wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 9:26am: Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it)  Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science. ... Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know. Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. Generally? I'd say invariably.  The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not. Not testable =/= hypothesis Testable =  falsifiable. therefore not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis Fail. Phil 101

I'm deeply honoured to fail Philosophy 101. I said generally, meaning from a broad perspective - the overall picture.  I didn't imply anything else.

Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us  via our senses. It is filtered by our hypothalamus according to our individual needs and prejudices and processed by our cerebral cortex.

Working hypotheses are testable using observation or experiment.  Scientific statements are always subject to and derived from our perceptory experiences or observations.

Quote:

Muso wrote Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us  via our senses.

Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism".

However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world".

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism". However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world".

I'm familiar with 'empirical research', which basically research based on observation or experience. That's just part of the scientific method.

Words are something we learn from an early age. You don't have to think too deeply about the significance of language. It's something we do well as human beings. It enables us to communicate (and internalise) concepts.

I get on perfectly well in life without delving into philosophy. Our brains are basically electrochemical organs. Understand the flow of data and we start to understand something fundamental about the real world as we perceive it. Reality as it were.

The real world exists for other living organisms and it's just as real for them regardless of the fact that they can't talk.

Mental masterbation IMO.
Throw the ball up, it comes down. Here on this earth I assume?

The boundaries of known science will probably always rely on philosophy to some extent. I'm sure that the vast majority in the field of science have gotten over that a long time ago.

You can't know all, but you can open up windows of understanding all over the place.
Science is a sequitor argument. It requires fact relative to our physical existence before any further suppositions can be made.

Basing a philosophy on a base of BS will accrue a greater amount of BS I believe.

I believe somebody who will tell me the truth that the ball will fall to the ground when thrown into the air, not somebody who tells me that the ball will stay suspended if I will look away and have faith in their word.

Amadd wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:52am:

Mental masterbation IMO. Throw the ball up, it comes down. Here on this earth I assume? The boundaries of known science will probably always rely on philosophy to some extent. I'm sure that the vast majority in the field of science have gotten over that a long time ago. You can't know all, but you can open up windows of understanding all over the place. Science is a sequitor argument. It requires fact relative to our physical existence before any further suppositions can be made. Basing a philosophy on a base of BS will accrue a greater amount of BS I believe. I believe somebody who will tell me the truth that the ball will fall to the ground when thrown into the air, not somebody who tells me that the ball will stay suspended if I will look away and have faith in their word.

What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates?i

Do you want to supersize? and
Do you want fries with that?

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism". However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world". I'm familiar with 'empirical research', which basically research based on observation or experience. That's just part of the scientific method. Words are something we learn from an early age. You don't have to think too deeply about the significance of language. It's something we do well as human beings. It enables us to communicate (and internalise) concepts. I get on perfectly well in life without delving into philosophy. Our brains are basically electrochemical organs. Understand the flow of data and we start to understand something fundamental about the real world as we perceive it. Reality as it were. The real world exists for other living organisms and it's just as real for them regardless of the fact that they can't talk.

Reality is constructed by those who make the concepts, the great majority of people don't construct them, they incorporate them, just like a sponge incorporates water. Those who really want to understand the world have to understand how those conceptualisations were formulated.
This isn't about "getting on well in life", it's about understanding.

Quote:

Muso wrote What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates? Do you want to supersize? and Do you want fries with that?

Ooooh, ad hominem, how scientifically rigorous!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

Quote: Muso wrote What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates? Do you want to supersize? and Do you want fries with that? Ooooh, ad hominem, how scientifically rigorous!

It wasn't an ad hominem. Those are only used in debating. I'm not debating - just having fun.

In a Chemistry lab, don't taste anything
In a Biology lab,  don't smell anything
In a Physics lab, don't look directly at anything
In a Medical lab, don't touch anything, and
in a philosophy department, don't listen to anything.

Newton's Law of Philosophy
+++++++++++++++++
For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.

Is this one of these posts that Locutius was going to delete?


Quote:

Those who really want to understand the world have to understand how those conceptualisations were formulated.

In fact, they would 'understand' several different accounts of how those conceptualisations were formulated, every one of them flawed in some way, but claiming to be pure unadulterated knowledge.  

Quote:

Do you want to supersize? and Do you want fries with that?

Before I looked at the answers, I was thinking along the lines of, "Why did I pay so much money and waste so much time on a degree which asks the same damned questions and provides the same damned answers as I had previously questioned and answered for myself?"

..and "wtf do I do now?"


At least this forum is free  :)

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 1:38pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 10:25am: muso wrote on Nov 19th, 2010 at 9:26am: Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it)  Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science. ... Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know. Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. Generally? I'd say invariably.  The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not. Not testable =/= hypothesis Testable =  falsifiable. therefore not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis Fail. Phil 101 I'm deeply honoured to fail Philosophy 101. I said generally, meaning from a broad perspective - the overall picture.  I didn't imply anything else. Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us  via our senses. It is filtered by our hypothalamus according to our individual needs and prejudices and processed by our cerebral cortex. Working hypotheses are testable using observation or experiment.  Scientific statements are always subject to and derived from our perceptory experiences or observations.

All communicable knowledge comes to us via language.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:49pm:

It wasn't an ad hominem. Those are only used in debating. I'm not debating - just having fun. In a Chemistry lab, don't taste anything In a Biology lab,  don't smell anything In a Physics lab, don't look directly at anything In a Medical lab, don't touch anything, and in a philosophy department, don't listen to anything.

Which lab was this spoken in?

Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:27pm:

All communicable knowledge comes to us via language.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4cmrMJul1g&feature=BF&list=PLAD8F623BAE1C593A&index=2

Quote:

Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

So that would be most scientists? And my high school science teacher?


Quote:

In science, we formulate hypotheses. Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong.

Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science.

;D Bean was a seriously funny character.
A picture is worth a thousand words no doubt.

Now if we could hypothesise as to why Bean is so funny, there may be a good philosophy in the making.
..that'll wipe the smile from your face!

I once 'read' a play by Rowan Atkinson which involved an audience at the Bolshoi ballet. None of the parts had any words. It consisted entirely of expressions and gestures. In fact the only thing you could hear was the performance. It was an interesting concept. When we were reading it, I could just imagine Mr Bean playing some of the roles.

I wish I could find a reference to it on the web or even You-Tube. I'd love to see that play being performed.

Our group decided not to go ahead with the play. Rowan Atkinson's royalties were too high.

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 9:02am:

Amadd wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 7:52am: Mental masterbation IMO. Throw the ball up, it comes down. Here on this earth I assume? The boundaries of known science will probably always rely on philosophy to some extent. I'm sure that the vast majority in the field of science have gotten over that a long time ago. You can't know all, but you can open up windows of understanding all over the place. Science is a sequitor argument. It requires fact relative to our physical existence before any further suppositions can be made. Basing a philosophy on a base of BS will accrue a greater amount of BS I believe. I believe somebody who will tell me the truth that the ball will fall to the ground when thrown into the air, not somebody who tells me that the ball will stay suspended if I will look away and have faith in their word. What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates?i Do you want to supersize? and Do you want fries with that?

I am a philosophy graduate and the question I most often ask is:







What the bugger do you think you are talking about??

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 4:36pm:

I am a philosophy graduate and the question I most often ask is: What the bugger do you think you are talking about??

That figures. I had suspected that for a long time.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

So that would be most scientists? And my high school science teacher?

Well I completed two Science degrees without any mention of it either at University or at High School (maybe I had the dentist that day  :) ).

I'd say that's probably because it's not rigorous.

Was your High School Science teacher Catholic?

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2010 at 5:01pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2010 at 4:36pm: I am a philosophy graduate and the question I most often ask is: What the bugger do you think you are talking about?? That figures. I had suspected that for a long time.

Actually, even now, after Soren has claimed to be a philosophy graduate, it is rather difficult to accept that as a statement based in reality!

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 7:48am:

freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm: So that would be most scientists? And my high school science teacher? Well I completed two Science degrees without any mention of it either at University or at High School (maybe I had the dentist that day  :) ). I'd say that's probably because it's not rigorous. Was your High School Science teacher Catholic?

What does it have to do with religion?

You do not have to understand you role in the scientific community in order to contribute to it, but sometimes it helps.

Perhaps you would like to offer an alternative philosophy of science, or explain your reason for rejecting the currently accepted one? Maybe you just don't understand it.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 8:12pm:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 7:48am: freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm: So that would be most scientists? And my high school science teacher? Well I completed two Science degrees without any mention of it either at University or at High School (maybe I had the dentist that day  :) ). I'd say that's probably because it's not rigorous. Was your High School Science teacher Catholic? What does it have to do with religion? You do not have to understand you role in the scientific community in order to contribute to it, but sometimes it helps. Perhaps you would like to offer an alternative philosophy of science, or explain your reason for rejecting the currently accepted one? Maybe you just don't understand it.

Why would you even bother? What's the point?

Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics, where subatomic particles don't follow the laws of logic in our highly limited view of the macroscopic universe?

The major advances in science have been from outside the box.

As far as not understanding it - what I do understand is that there are various conflicting assertions, none of which in any way reflect what usually goes on in scientific research. Even if they did, scientific practices are dynamic.  They don't fit into any neat box.  In research you do what you have to do. You work with whatever information or clues are available to you.

Nothing is as cut and dried as 'falsifiable' or 'unfalsifiable'. You have to take risks. You have to stick your neck out.   To take a culinary analogy, you have to eat the whole enchilada, even if you don't know what's in it.

Philosophy of science is just a weapon used by certain groups with an agenda, to attempt to limit its scope. We don't go there - it's not scientific. (Here be monsters). Science must not encroach on that which belongs to God.

The question is not so much "is it falsifiable?", but "does it work?"

It's a bit like computer code. If it works, don't mess with it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken. OK, it could have a latent problem in the code, but we'll just run beta's until we get it all sorted out.  

If religions had their way, very few sciences would have evolved.

If religions didn't mostly have it their own way, we would be far more scientifically evolved than we are now.

If philosophers had their way over religions, I'd suspect that we'd still be far more scientically evolved than we are now.

If scientists had it all their own way, I'd thank God that we still exist today  ;D

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:31pm:

Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science.

- a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'.

Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.  

Quote:

muso wrote Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics, where subatomic particles don't follow the laws of logic in our highly limited view of the macroscopic universe?

But could scientists ask why does depression happen? Can they ask why do human beings feel they need a purpose? Can they ask what is the good life?
I am not against science, not at all, rather, I look upon it with extreme interest. But it can't ask questions without moving into abstractions. The two ought, and do, work together.
The only 'philosophers' (i use that word loosely) you need to be wary of are the transcendentalists and mystics.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 9:41am:

freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm: Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science. - a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'. Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.

Typical science graduate - talking through his Bumsen burner....

You can't compare life's imperfections to those of a tool (Windows 7) unless you know what it is like to be part of that tool, just as you are part of life and not using it as a tool.


Lovely weather we're having today, what?

:P

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 10:31am:

muso wrote on Nov 24th, 2010 at 9:41am: freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm: Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science. - a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'. Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.   Typical science graduate - talking through his Bumsen burner.... You can't compare life's imperfections to those of a tool (Windows 7) unless you know what it is like to be part of that tool, just as you are part of life and not using it as a tool. Lovely weather we're having today, what? :P

Even tools have a purpose in life :P

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

Quote: muso wrote Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics, where subatomic particles don't follow the laws of logic in our highly limited view of the macroscopic universe? But could scientists ask why does depression happen?

Yeah. It's usually related to serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain. The symptoms are treatable.  There are many different causes, including drug abuse, viruses, social problems etc.

It's largely thanks to advances in Medical Science that we can diagnose depression and identify its root causes.

Just remind me again what Philosophy brings to the table.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 11:22am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 24th, 2010 at 10:26am: Quote: muso wrote Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics, where subatomic particles don't follow the laws of logic in our highly limited view of the macroscopic universe? But could scientists ask why does depression happen? Yeah. It's usually related to serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine levels in the brain. The symptoms are treatable.  There are many different causes, including drug abuse, viruses, social problems etc. It's largely thanks to advances in Medical Science that we can diagnose depression and identify its root causes. Just remind me again what Philosophy brings to the table.

Why is depression a problem? Why even diagnose it and then treat it?
Theories of the causes of depression begin at least far back as Schopenhauer, but also with Nietzsche and Freud.
The chemical imbalances - serotonin etc - are only its symptoms, not its causes.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

Why is depression a problem? Why even diagnose it and then treat it? Theories of the causes of depression begin at least far back as Schopenhauer, but also with Nietzsche and Freud. The chemical imbalances - serotonin etc - are only its symptoms, not its causes.

Ah ze great Sigmund Freud - of course. It must be a result of psycho-sexual tension then. It was H. J. Eysenck, who wrote that Freud 'set psychiatry back one hundred years', consistently mis-diagnosed his patients, fraudulently misrepresented case histories......

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 11:14am:

Soren wrote on Nov 24th, 2010 at 10:31am: muso wrote on Nov 24th, 2010 at 9:41am: freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2010 at 10:31pm: Generally, they are wrong. That is part of the power of science. - a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'. Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.   Typical science graduate - talking through his Bumsen burner.... You can't compare life's imperfections to those of a tool (Windows 7) unless you know what it is like to be part of that tool, just as you are part of life and not using it as a tool. Lovely weather we're having today, what? :P Even tools have a purpose in life :P

Tools are not alive. Except talking tools, of course, as they used to be callsed. In our times they include slaves to scientism, for example.

Your agument that depression is nothing but brain chemistry is just sheer talking toolery.

Soren wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 2:38pm:

Your agument that depression is nothing but brain chemistry is just sheer talking toolery.

Quote:

Depression is associated with changes in substances in the brain (neurotransmitters) that help nerve cells communicate, such as serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. The levels of these neurotransmitters can be influenced by, among other things, physical illnesses, genetics, hormonal changes, medications, aging, brain injuries, seasonal/light cycle changes, and social circumstances. A 2010 review suggests that the genes which control the body clock may contribute to depression.

http://jop.sagepub.com/content/24/2_suppl/5

Now you tell me how some quack like Sigmund Freud could have determined most of these causes, with the exception of social circumstances.  (I heard recently on the "Health Report" that some doctors are over-diagnosing depression - Depression is necessary in some cases - for example bereavement)

He would have probably convinced the hapless victim that it was all caused by an episode in his childhood when he walked into the master bedroom.

You rule out the field where he could determine causes of depression, social circumstances. He was a psychologist, not a geneticist, physiologist, etc. Just as a geneticists and physiologists are not psychologists.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2010 at 1:55pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 24th, 2010 at 12:57pm: Why is depression a problem? Why even diagnose it and then treat it? Theories of the causes of depression begin at least far back as Schopenhauer, but also with Nietzsche and Freud. The chemical imbalances - serotonin etc - are only its symptoms, not its causes. Ah ze great Sigmund Freud - of course. It must be a result of psycho-sexual tension then. It was H. J. Eysenck, who wrote that Freud 'set psychiatry back one hundred years', consistently mis-diagnosed his patients, fraudulently misrepresented case histories......

There's no refutation in your response, just slogans.
While I agree Freud was too reductionist in reducing everything to the sex drive, are you saying depression (and neurosis) cannot be triggered by sexual frustration?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

You rule out the field where he could determine causes of depression, social circumstances. He was a psychologist, not a geneticist, physiologist, etc. Just as a geneticists and physiologists are not psychologists.

I don't rule out the possibility that a psychologist could determine social causes, but a family GP is trained to do that in most cases, or indeed a social worker could do the same (or anybody else with a modicum of common sense). The field of cognitive psychology has at least brought us into a less neolithic age with respect to the human brain/mind - and cognitive psychology lies firmly in the scientific domain.  

Psychiatry in general is still hit and miss. It's more akin to divination than anything else. If you can be diagnosed with a totally different mental condition depending on where in the world you see a psychiatrist, it kind of says something about the lack of rigour in the field. You'd be just as well seeing a guru or a shaman. Anyone want a Hopi candle to stick in their ear? I have some spare.

As far as occupational psychologists are concerned - do you prefer Myers Briggs charts or Tarot cards? I'm amazed that companies still waste money on those quacks.  ;D

muso:


Quote:

Why would you even bother? What's the point?

To show that your take on science and philosophy is not completely hollow. If you can't come up with an alternative, at least try to come up with a rational criticism.


Quote:

Put it this way - Could philosophers have come up with Quantum physics

They did come up with quantum physics.


Quote:

The major advances in science have been from outside the box.

All rejection of the dominant paradigm comes from outside the box - by definition. This is the sort of insight philosophy yields.


Quote:

As far as not understanding it - what I do understand is that there are various conflicting assertions, none of which in any way reflect what usually goes on in scientific research.

Can you explain how Kuhn's assertions differ from the reality of scientific research? As I understand it, his views have become the commonly accepted view precisely because they not only reflect the reality of scientific research, but provide great insight into it.


Quote:

Even if they did, scientific practices are dynamic.

And Kuhn captures this dynamism.


Quote:

They don't fit into any neat box.

Kuhn does not put them in a neat box.


Quote:

In research you do what you have to do. You work with whatever information or clues are available to you.

Instead of starting from scratch, you should understand what has already been proposed first, then decide whether you need to reinvent the wheel.


Quote:

Nothing is as cut and dried as 'falsifiable' or 'unfalsifiable'.

In my experience making this distinction yields great insight into the process of acquiring new knowledge. Insight is not the same thing as cutting and drying things, but it is valuable.


Quote:

Philosophy of science is just a weapon used by certain groups with an agenda, to attempt to limit its scope.

I suspect you are confusing the entirity of philosophy with a single philosophical argument I have made, and you now try to reject the entire field of philosophy because you have no other way of rejecting my argument. At least, that is the only way I can make any kind of sense of this claim.


Quote:

We don't go there - it's not scientific. (Here be monsters). Science must not encroach on that which belongs to God.

Who makes this argument?


Quote:

The question is not so much "is it falsifiable?", but "does it work?"

I think Kuhn answers this quite well. But be careful, you might end up sounding like a philosopher of science if you keep asking these questions. Then you would have to reject your own views as worthless.

Amadd


Quote:

If religions had their way, very few sciences would have evolved.

Did you know that most of the early ground breaking scientists, from the days when science was a lifestyle choice like music - ie no money in it - were actually religious people? For many of them, their faith motivated them to enquire. The battle between science and religion may sell newspapers, but it does not do justice to reality.

muso:


Quote:

- a bit like Windows 7. It might be flawed, but people still use it subject to its limitations. 'Imperfect' is not the same as 'wrong'.

I did not mean to imply that most scientific theories are imperfect. I meant what I said - they are wrong. Just like Newtonian mechanics is wrong. A layman may confuse the error with mere imperfection, but a philosopher of science understands that the currently accepted theory is a completely different way of looking at things, from the ground up.


Quote:

Life is imperfect. We are all imperfect, but that doesn't make us invariably wrong.

But muso, we only gain knowledge by realising that we are wrong. The more times we realise we are wrong, the more knowledge we gain. Otherwise you are the bitter 80 year old who hasn't learnt a thing since his eighth birthday, but knows he is right.


Quote:

Just remind me again what Philosophy brings to the table.

Perspective. Insight.


Quote:

it kind of says something about the lack of rigour in the field

I think it says more about the topic rather than the methods used to study it. If anything, psychologists overcompensate.

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2010 at 10:43am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 25th, 2010 at 9:32am: You rule out the field where he could determine causes of depression, social circumstances. He was a psychologist, not a geneticist, physiologist, etc. Just as a geneticists and physiologists are not psychologists. I don't rule out the possibility that a psychologist could determine social causes, but a family GP is trained to do that in most cases, or indeed a social worker could do the same (or anybody else with a modicum of common sense). The field of cognitive psychology has at least brought us into a less neolithic age with respect to the human brain/mind - and cognitive psychology lies firmly in the scientific domain.   Psychiatry in general is still hit and miss. It's more akin to divination than anything else. If you can be diagnosed with a totally different mental condition depending on where in the world you see a psychiatrist, it kind of says something about the lack of rigour in the field. You'd be just as well seeing a guru or a shaman. Anyone want a Hopi candle to stick in their ear? I have some spare. As far as occupational psychologists are concerned - do you prefer Myers Briggs charts or Tarot cards? I'm amazed that companies still waste money on those quacks.  ;D

All psychology, even cognitive psychology, relies on the communication of 'mental states' from patient to doctor, or from pupil to teacher. There's little 'hard science' to this. It's more trust than anything. As stated before, it only becomes 'hard science' when the origin of ideas are forgotten and then taken to be reality itself.
Still, however far psychology has come today and is being taken seriously, it has its genesis in philosophy; which, was the point I was trying to make. All science begins in abstractions - philosophy. To put science before philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. And, to do away with philosophy altogether would be to have nothing but the cart!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 29^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

All psychology, even cognitive psychology, relies on the communication of 'mental states' from patient to doctor, or from pupil to teacher. There's little 'hard science' to this. It's more trust than anything. As stated before, it only becomes 'hard science' when the origin of ideas are forgotten and then taken to be reality itself. Still, however far psychology has come today and is being taken seriously, it has its genesis in philosophy; which, was the point I was trying to make. All science begins in abstractions - philosophy. To put science before philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. And, to do away with philosophy altogether would be to have nothing but the cart!

That part is trust, but there are ways of checking the information for internal consistency. The main strength of cognitive psychology lies in the fact that it works with the physical model of the brain to correct behavioural issues. It provides a set of tools that psychologists can teach people to help themselves. Without the insights of cognitive psychology and the inputs from neurosurgery, we'd be back in the days of Freud and the other 'shamans' who basically guessed.

While I accept that we need to start with abstractions, the absolute test comes with physical observations and experiments to bring us down to earth. Without that, we're in the land of Cloud Cuckoo land - of dreams and Oedipus complexes. Often Invariably we find that any such abstractions are flawed as a result of such reality checks, and we have to go back and revise our abstractions.  

It's not a question of philosophy coming before science. In practice it's a complex feedback loop. If you leave science out of the picture, it can be an extremely ingrown feedback loop.

The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN4Hod8Clv8

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 8:32am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 2:55pm: All psychology, even cognitive psychology, relies on the communication of 'mental states' from patient to doctor, or from pupil to teacher. There's little 'hard science' to this. It's more trust than anything. As stated before, it only becomes 'hard science' when the origin of ideas are forgotten and then taken to be reality itself. Still, however far psychology has come today and is being taken seriously, it has its genesis in philosophy; which, was the point I was trying to make. All science begins in abstractions - philosophy. To put science before philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. And, to do away with philosophy altogether would be to have nothing but the cart! That part is trust, but there are ways of checking the information for internal consistency. The main strength of cognitive psychology lies in the fact that it works with the physical model of the brain to correct behavioural issues.

Sorry to pick up on a moot point, Muso, but does it?

Neuropsychiatry doesn't involve cognition. They think they might - one day. Cognative psychology is based on how thoughts influence your behaviour.

Thoughts are abstract. I can't see how we'll ever discover physical evidence of thought.

Funny, isn't it? Thinking is the most important thing there is, but you can't see it, hear it, taste it.

http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/thought-boy-797587.gif

I know what he's thinking.

http://www.worldtoilet.org/wtd/images/Happy%20World%20Toilet%20Day.png

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2010 at 8:32am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 29th, 2010 at 2:55pm: All psychology, even cognitive psychology, relies on the communication of 'mental states' from patient to doctor, or from pupil to teacher. There's little 'hard science' to this. It's more trust than anything. As stated before, it only becomes 'hard science' when the origin of ideas are forgotten and then taken to be reality itself. Still, however far psychology has come today and is being taken seriously, it has its genesis in philosophy; which, was the point I was trying to make. All science begins in abstractions - philosophy. To put science before philosophy is putting the cart before the horse. And, to do away with philosophy altogether would be to have nothing but the cart! That part is trust, but there are ways of checking the information for internal consistency. The main strength of cognitive psychology lies in the fact that it works with the physical model of the brain to correct behavioural issues. It provides a set of tools that psychologists can teach people to help themselves. Without the insights of cognitive psychology and the inputs from neurosurgery, we'd be back in the days of Freud and the other 'shamans' who basically guessed. While I accept that we need to start with abstractions, the absolute test comes with physical observations and experiments to bring us down to earth. Without that, we're in the land of Cloud Cuckoo land - of dreams and Oedipus complexes. Often Invariably we find that any such abstractions are flawed as a result of such reality checks, and we have to go back and revise our abstractions.   It's not a question of philosophy coming before science. In practice it's a complex feedback loop. If you leave science out of the picture, it can be an extremely ingrown feedback loop.

This is silly. Karnal is right, you can't have physical models of thoughts.

Anything communicable is in the form of some sort of language. Human language (speech) is pure abstraction. Mental states, insofar as they become communicable (ie thoughts), become so when they take shape in language. ('Language is the house of being'). In a profound way, therefore, even your physical model is pure abstraction, as it is concieved and communicated in language. In other words, it is in the word, it is real, but only as far as your thoughts and words and communications/exopressions of it are. (What I am stressing is that thoughts, being abstract,are not for that reason unreal).

You suffer from the positivist disease of equating matter/physical thing with reality - and so non-material things with unreality.

On Freud and other 'shamans' - Literature, drama, poetry have been far, far more insightful in matters of psychology than brain surgery. Greek mythology, from which Sophocles's Oedipus Rex is re-told, is particularly rich and insightful. And Freud is at his very best and most enduring precisely when he talks about such matters.

There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.

JC Denton wrote on Dec 6^th, 2010 at 11:06am:

The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN4Hod8Clv8

I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment".
However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 9:40am:

JC Denton wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:06am: The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN4Hod8Clv8 I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment". However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis.

Stole it from Niezsche? How did he manage that?

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 8:38am:

There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.

Don't rush. I can just see it. It's going to be along the lines of weather/climate: discounting actual, individual thoughts in order to maintain the fantasy that only what is wholly abstract and modelled (brain architecture) is truly real.

Soren wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 9:45am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 9:40am: JC Denton wrote on Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:06am: The great Dr. Eysenck on Freud. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN4Hod8Clv8 I agree with Eysenck on his criticisms of Freud's theory of "wish fulfillment". However, he didn't speak about repression and what affect this has on human beings. Freud's Civilization and its Discontents, in my opinion, is brilliant; even though he stole a lot of it from Nietzsche. Also, his Ego and the Id has some interesting theories on character formation, melancholia, and neurosis. Stole it from Niezsche? How did he manage that?

He had to answer to charges of plagarism.

The second essay of Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is very close to Freud's Civilization and its Discontents.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

He had to answer to charges of plagarism.

No he didn't. You are mistaken about Nietzsche's influence on Freud. That both were deeply interested in and had a thorough grasp of archaic and classical antiquity as well as the ability for sustained introspection is not to be mistaken for one incfluencing the other.

Soren wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 12:28pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7th, 2010 at 10:06am: He had to answer to charges of plagarism. No he didn't. You are mistaken about Nietzsche's influence on Freud. That both were deeply interested in and had a thorough grasp of archaic and classical antiquity as well as the ability for sustained introspection is not to be mistaken for one incfluencing the other.

Quote:

THE CASE: FREUD’S PLAGIARISM It is an unfortunately a too little known fact that Freud was a documented plagiarist from his early years. His first scientific paper robbed the work of a then little known Russian, as pointed out by Dr. Bernfield. The great Thomas Mann pointed out that the conceptual basis for the foundations of psychoanalysis was “out and out Schopenhauer” and that Nietzsche work was in many respect remarkably close to Freud’s. Freud steadfastly always denied that he had ever read those scions of German philosophy but recent investigative work by Santana M. Chapman of Samu Hospital, Vitoriada Conquista, Bahai, Brazil, conclusively “outs” Freud’s plagiarism. After a detailed study of Nietzsche’s works and the unpinning of Freud’s concepts he concludes: Concepts of Nietzsche which are similar to those of Freud include (a) the concept of the unconscious mind; (b) the idea that repression pushes unacceptable feelings and thoughts into the unconscious and thus makes the individual emotionally more comfortable and effective; (c) the conception that repressed emotions and instinctual drives later are expressed in disguised ways (for example, hostile feelings and ideas may be expressed as altruistic sentiments and acts); (d) the concept of dreams as complex, symbolic “illusions of illusions” and dreaming itself as a cathartic process which has healthy properties; and (e) the suggestion that the projection of hostile, unconscious feelings onto others, who are then perceived as persecutors of the individual, is the basis of paranoid. Some of Freud’s basic terms are identical to those used by Nietzsche. In his work, Dr. Chapman gave the following conclusion to his “The Influence of Nietzsche on Freud’s Ideas”: CONCLUSION: Freud repeatedly stated that he had never read Nietzsche. Evidence contradicting this are his references to Nietzsche and his quotations and paraphrases of him, in casual conversation and his now published personal correspondence, as well as his early and later writings. (Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun; 166 (6): 825‐6 & Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1) Of course, “evidence contradicting” simply means Freud was a liar—a fact not at all new to me or anyone who has made an in‐depth study of Freud and his life and works. To further make the point, I quote from arguably the greatest German writer of the 20th century; I speak again of Thomas Mann, on another of Freud’s denied sources, besides Nietzsche, for his supposedly unique creation of a new “science” of psychoanalysis. But Freud’s description of the id and the ego—is it not to a hair Schopenhauer’s description of the Will and the intellect, a translation of the latter’s metaphysics into psychology? So he who had been initiated into metaphysics of Schopenhauer and in Nietzsche tasted the painful pleasure of psychology—he must needs have been filled with a sense of recognition and familiarity when first, encouraged thereto by it denizens, he entered the realms of psychoanalysis and looked about him. Essays by Thomas Mann, Vintage Books, 1929, “Freud and the Future” And, Mann, either too trusting in Freud’s denial of familiarity with Schopenhauer, or too polite to bluntly state the obvious, that Freud was a plagiarist, goes on to draw the extremely close parallels between Schopenhauer’s system and Freud’s. I myself was aware of these matters of plagiarism of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer when I wrote Passion For Murder and stated as much: In terms of philosophy, Freud presents nothing at all new and, in fact, Mann intimates that the entire philosophical scheme presented by Freud as his own is nothing but out‐and‐out Schopenhauer. And if Nietzsche’s concept of the immoral superman were added to Schopenhauer's philosophy of despair, Freud's true ideological heritage would be precisely defined.

http://www.passionformurder.com/FreudPlagerizeEdgarAllenPoe.htm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 1:17pm:

(Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 Jun; 166 (6): 825‐6 & Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1)

;D ;D ;D   All very - what's the word? -  compulsive-obsessive.  Nutty. This is the full text of the second reference above:
Br. J Psychiatry. 1995 May; 166 (5): 680‐1

Nietzsche, Freud and Eternal Recurrence of the Repressed
Cybulska, E.

Author Information Thameslink Healthcare Services. Dartford. Kent, DA2 6AU.

SIR: I read Chapman & Chapman-Santana's paper on the influence of Nietzsche on Freud's ideas with interest (BJP, February 1995, 166, 251-253). I was, however, rather disappointed that the authors mention only fleetingly the pivotal achievement of Nietzschean thought - the eternal recurrence - and make no connection between this and the cardinal Freudian idea of `repetition compulsion'. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche translates Zarathustra's discovery of the eternal return into the occurrence of everyday life:
 
"If one has character, one also has one's typical experience which returns repeatedly" (Nietzsche, 1966). [3]
 
Correspondingly, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, the major paper on repetition compulsion, Freud describes this phenomenon:
 
"as essential character-trait which always remains the same and which is compelled to find expression in a repetition of the same experiences" (Freud, 1955a). [1]
 
Nowhere does the compulsion to repeat manifest itself greater than in the transference, the corner-stone of psychoanalytic therapy. Repetition compulsion serves the patient's ambivalent wish to both cling on to the hidden impulse and to keep it away from consciousness. It also functions as a mirror of a mysterious drama, drama that forms the essence of the patient's unconscious being. It is not difficult to recognise here the mask of Zarathustra, a Nietzschean demon of eternal return:
 
"I come again, with this sun, with this earth, with this eagle, with this serpent - not to a new life or a better life or a similar life; I come back eternally to this same, selfsame life, in what is greatest as in what is smallest, to teach again the eternal recurrence of all things..." (Nietzche, 1954). [2]
 
E. CYBULSKA
 
Thameslink Healthcare Services
 
Dartford
 
Kent, DA2 6AU
 
 
REFERENCES  
1. FREUD, S. (1955) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Standard Edition, Vol 18 (ed & trans. by J. Strachey), p. 22. London: Hogarth Press. [Context Link]
 
2. NIETZSCHE, F. (1954) Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In The Portable Nietzsche (ed & trans. W. Kaufmann), p. 333. New York: Penguin Books. [Context Link]
 
3. NIETZSCHE, F. (1966) Beyond Good and Evil. In Basic Writings of Nietzsche (ed & trans. by W. Kaufmann), p. 22. New York: Random House. [Context Link]

the full text of the first reference (non-nutty):


Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud
Karwautz, A.; Wober-Bingol, C.; Wober, C.

Author Information
University of Vienna.
Dept. of Neuropsychiatry.
of Childhood and Adolescence.
1090, Vienna, Austria.

SIR: Chapman & Chapman-Santana (BJP, February 1995, 166, 251-252) reviewed systematically the analogies between Nietzsche's ideas and Freud's concepts and concluded that some of Freud's basic terms (e.g. concept of unconscious mind, sublimation, id, ego, human mental processes, the role of the dreams as `nature's healing powers') were identical to those used by Nietzsche.
 
Chapman cited Ellenberger stating that he could hardly believe that Freud never read Nietzsche. However, this speculation of Ellenberger and Chapman may be qualified by Freud himself who emphasised,
 
"In later years I have denied myself the very great pleasure of reading the works of Nietzsche, with the deliberate object of not being hampered in working out my impressions received in psychoanalysis by any sort of anticipatory ideas. I had therefore to be prepared - and I am so, gladly - to forgo all claims to priority in the many instances in which laborious psychoanalytic investigation can merely confirm the truth which the philosopher recognized by intuition," (Freud, 1914) [1]
 
Eleven years later he wrote,
 
"Nietzsche [...] whose guesses and intuitions often agree in the most astonishing way with the laborious findings of psychoanalysis, was for a long time avoided by me [...]; I was less concerned with the question of priority than keeping my mind unembarrassed." (Freud, 1925) [2]
 
Freud's very high appreciation of Nietzsche's congeniality is documented in a letter to his friend Fliess written on 1 February, 1900:
 
"I have just acquired Nietzsche where I hope to find words for much that remains mute within me, but I have not yet opened the book." (Freud, 1985). [3]
 
The works of Nietzsche and Freud, which first were written in German, have had a substantial and lasting influence on forthcoming concepts in psychology, culture and politics, particularly in German speaking countries. Chapman's statement that only two psychiatric papers dealt in depth with the relation between Freud and Nietzsche must be qualified. Karl Jaspers, the famous German psychopathologist and philosopher referred to Nietzsche and appreciated him as harbinger of modern psychology. The abundant relations between psychoanalysis and Nietzsche are reviewed comprehensively by Strotzka (1988) [8] and Haslinger (1993). [5] Waugaman (1973) [9] dealt with the intellectual relationship of Nietzsche and Freud.
 
In addition, there are some outstanding papers on problem complexes found in the thought of both Nietzsche and Freud: consciousness as a `surface phenomenon', repression as a control mechanism and its importance in art and religion, the superego (Hagens, 1985), [4] and the origin of the id (Nitzscke, 1983). Holmes (1983) [6,7] pointed out that for both Freud and Nietzsche, the cause of the human tragedy was not merely the fall of Nature, but the inexorable knowledge that Man's denial of his biological heritage was the very basis of being human.
 
Thus there is a much more extensive discussion of Nietzsche's influence on Freud, carried on especially by psychiatrists and psychoanalysts both in English and German speaking countries, than Chapman & Chapman-Santana's paper demonstrated.
 
A. KARWAUTZ
 
C. WOBER-BINGOL
 
C. WOBER
 
University of Vienna
 
Dept. of Neuropsychiatry
 
of Childhood and Adolescence
 
1090, Vienna, Austria

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2010 at 8:38am:

There are insights from cognitive psychology that derive from brain architecture - but not at the individual thought level .  I'll explain what I meant some other time. Meantime, real life calls.

Perhaps, but what "brain architecture" measures is emotion, not cognition.

In neurology, for example, if the imigdula's neurons are active, it indicates fear.

Cognition, however, is how the mind interprets fear. Cognition, of course, can create fear. Often out of nothing.

I think therefore I am - not the other way around.

Soren's thoughts on this matter are entirely apt and show sound judgement, particularly his ideas on Freud, who is much more important in the humanities than psychology.

As a case in point, Soren has a lot of neurones in his brain and spinal cord, which spark up every now and then and create physiological reactions.

This is in stark contrast, however, to his ability to think, which is merely influenced by his firing neurones - particularly if you happen to mention Allah or any other signifier of the Islamic faith.

Of course, there is nothing about Islamic signifiers in themselves which makes regions like the imigdula light up, they are merely signs. Soren's cognition processes these signs according to his belief system, or thinking. And this is what cognative psychology teaches.

Thought is invisible, but it is predictable, based on a system of signs, or language.

Freud didn't think subjects could be really free as we are based, as he believed, on biological urges, many of them unconscious and working hard to conceal themselves from consciousness. Freud saw this mechanism as a process, not a product, a systemic interface between cognition (consciousness) and unconscious limbic processes of fear and desire. His solution was to shine light on these processes, where possible, through psychoanalysis, who's purpose was to allow:

Where there was id, there shall ego be.

For Nietzsche, however, freedom is possible because the mediator of this process is linguistic: if you can unpick the signs that cause you fear or desire (or your slavery to these), you can be liberated. Of course, very few are, or will ever be. Great people like this only come about once in an age.

On this board, there are few, if any. It_is_the_light, perhaps...

For Freud, signs shift and are altered through fear and desire by unconscious processes: projection, transference, sublimation, condensation, etc, etc, etc. These unconscious processes can only be "read" by an external reader - a trained psychoanalyst, of course, but these processes are not immutable laws. Psychoanalysists, for Freud, are observers of nature, not psychologists with checklists and formulas. Each subject is a work in him/herself.

Psychoanalysis can only be a way, therefore, of reading. It's not a system or formula in itself. This is why it's so crucial to the humanities and interpretive fields.

Nietzsche only became really influential on the humanities when reflected through other thinkers, particularly Heidegger, Sartre, and then Foucault, through the question of Being; again, a verb - a process - and not a noun, phenomenon or observable thing.

Cognition, therefore, is only detectable through language - not the lighting up of neurones or regions of the brain. In cognative psychology, cognition is the mediator between feeling and behaviour, which are both observable, whereas cognition isn't.

But who knows? Maybe one day it will be.

The sort of insights I was referring to, related to topics we have been discussing on other threads - for example, the baud limitations of sensory inputs, the filtering of sensory inputs accordining to preconception and prejudice, and the fact that even our real-time 'perception' of the real world is a composite of processed memory and sensory input.

The fact that we have a primitive brain and a separate higher brain give rise to a number of interesting consequences. For example, there are occasions where people have stepped out on to a busy road stopping themselves just in time before a vehicle flies past. That is a consequence of the fact that sensory input to the higher brain is delayed, whereas we get much faster signals to our primitive brain. (Feelings of divine intervention/ pre-warning/ deja vu)

An understanding of how memory is formed and reassembled by the brain provides insight into behaviour and ways in which learning can be enhanced and negative attitudes can be deprogrammed.

Neurolinguistic programming has a bad name mainly due to Charletans and New Agers adding their own mythology, but some aspects of NLP are sound, and are used routinely by psychologists.

These aspects of cognitive psychology derive primarily from scientific studies.

They are also important insights that the likes of Nietzsche was not privy to.

muso wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 9:19am:

The sort of insights I was referring to, related to topics we have been discussing on other threads - for example, the baud limitations of sensory inputs, the filtering of sensory inputs accordining to preconception and prejudice, and the fact that even our real-time 'perception' of the real world is a composite of processed memory and sensory input. The fact that we have a primitive brain and a separate higher brain give rise to a number of interesting consequences. For example, there are occasions where people have stepped out on to a busy road stopping themselves just in time before a vehicle flies past. That is a consequence of the fact that sensory input to the higher brain is delayed, whereas we get much faster signals to our primitive brain. (Feelings of divine intervention/ pre-warning/ deja vu) An understanding of how memory is formed and reassembled by the brain provides insight into behaviour and ways in which learning can be enhanced and negative attitudes can be deprogrammed. Neurolinguistic programming has a bad name mainly due to Charletans and New Agers adding their own mythology, but some aspects of NLP are sound, and are used routinely by psychologists. These aspects of cognitive psychology derive primarily from scientific studies. They are also important insights that the likes of Nietzsche was not privy to.

They're doing some amazing work on brains. It's very early days though - still in the pioneering stage.

I had NLP once. It was just a series of visualization exercises. I'm sure if you stuck at it you'd get some benefits, but really, it's no great miracle, believe me. The attempt at scientific legitimacy, particularly in its name, shows how hollow this fad really was.

Any change in life: feelings, thoughts, behaviour is going to change your neurology.

Brain science is useful - particularly for brain surgery. But the thing that haunts us - that has the potential to liberate us - is the mind. We need to know how the nervous system works, but as Freud showed, there are other systems at play.

The whole medical-model - the set of discourses that arose with the invention of the hospital in the late 19th century - has turned mind on its head. Psychiatry now talks about brains like any other organ. "Brain chemistry", "wiring," "neural functioning;" mental health problems are now discussed as diseases of the brain - as opposed to diseases of the mind.

What this has done is present people with diseases like schitzophrenia as essentially incurable. All work has gone into drug treatment alone. No one talks about treating schitzophrenia with talking cures anymore. No one talks about the mental aspect of schitzophrenia at all. "Thoughts" are seen as passive ghosts of the brain, and something a subject has no control over. The diseased brain does the work, and the way to treat this organ is with drugs.

Having known a few people with schitzophrenia, I'm not overly optimistic about the ability to snap out of it. But I do see it as a disease of the mind, as opposed to the brain. Sure, if you think something long enough, it will establish neural pathways in the nervous system - it will create molecular patterns in the synapses - but the way out is to change your thinking, an idea that has become quite passe within psychiatry.

The new generation of anti-psychotic drugs have been tested to have almost the same results as the old ones - no improvement in reducing psychosis, but some improvement in side effects. Antidepressants (for moderate, not chronic, depression) have been shown to have very similar results to placebos. Psychiatry is a very, very subjective field, which is why you need a focus on the mind, or how people interpret things.

Every psychiatrist knows this, of course, but psychiatrists are hostage to the pharmaceutical industry as much as their patients.

Well, I'm not a dualist like you. I think there is good evidence that the mind is just another way to describe the operation of the brain. The brain is the key to the mind.  Trying to tackle the mind is like trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. There is no such thing as a mind surgeon, but there is such a thing as a brain surgeon. Brain defects can impact on personality, and these can be corrected therapeutically. That much is beyond doubt.  

Sensory inputs are processed by the reticular activation system prior to routing them to the concious or subconscious part of the brain.  Understanding the process and its physical limitations can improve individual control of the brain.

Nobody really calls it NLP these days, but the whole business of brain plasticity has been demonstrated to be correct. Psychologists routinely ask people to reframe their thoughts, feelings and action to versions that are more effective. Some aspects of NLP are based on hard science, but the term itself doesn't have much credibility these days.

Quote:

No one talks about the mental aspect of schizophrenia at all. "Thoughts" are seen as passive ghosts of the brain, and something a subject has no control over. The diseased brain does the work, and the way to treat this organ is with drugs.

Well, a psychologist might disagree with the last point. If anything, cognitive psychology has emphasised the plasticity of the brain and the ability of an individual to reprogram and adapt to changing neuropathic and other conditions.  

We all have control over our thoughts and feelings if we choose to accept that control.

muso wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 12:17pm:

Well, I'm not a dualist like you. I think there is good evidence that the mind is just another way to describe the operation of the brain. The brain is the key to the mind.  Trying to tackle the mind is like trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause. There is no such thing as a mind surgeon, but there is such a thing as a brain surgeon. Brain defects can impact on personality, and these can be corrected therapeutically. That much is beyond doubt.

Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in.

A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena.

A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel).

So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind.

I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist.

I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is.

This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth.

I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to.

Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common.

Karnal wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in. A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena. A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel). So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind. I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist. I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is. This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth. I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to. Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common.

Hmmm, sometimes I'm not sure if you're just playing with me the way you play with some others.

Science takes a dualist approach? Well that's a new way of looking at things. I understand dualism to mean dualism of mind and brain, but I understand your argument too. I think it's daft, but that's ok. At least it's not daft in an arrogant way.

Of course there is an objective form of truth that we all have access to. What are you thinking of? Reality is predictable. If we didn't have a predictable world out there, we wouldn't be alive. You couldn't sit down, have a coffee and contemplate the universe, because for all you know, you could actually be drinking the real universe and contemplating the vast swirl of the galactic macchiato instead.

Matter exists and is predictable, and if you beat your head against a brick wall, you'll still damage it regardless of whether you're a human being, a lemur or a pink orthoclase phenocryst. The laws of nature apply to the observer and everything else.

I've never studied it, but It might all be different in the field of Wankology Philosophy.  We'd have to listen to the ramblings of some primitive individual from the 19th century (or worse) who didn't understand the  basics of thermodynamics because it hadn't been invented in his day.  Take a phlogiston tablet twice a day after food. It will give you a nice warm feeling, but it's all illusory.

Yeah, that might work.  :P

You are as confident in the scientific consensus of today as were scientists a hundred years ago. Yet much of those certainties are now laughable. Your current certainties will be laughable in a hundred years. SCientific certainties date faster than fashion.

Wisdom, on the other hand, is not like the latest hat of scienctific certainty.

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:

You are as confident in the scientific consensus of today as were scientists a hundred years ago. Yet much of those certainties are now laughable. Your current certainties will be laughable in a hundred years. SCientific certainties date faster than fashion. Wisdom, on the other hand, is not like the latest hat of scienctific certainty.

In some areas, science will advance. It's just another branch of wisdom as you call it, but a natural philosophy with both feet firmly on the ground.  

The hat of philosophy is changing so much that it's like a chameleon. The problem is that nobody can decide whether or not it even exists. On the one hand we have Sigmund Freud waxing lyrically about its elaborate lace filigree while the next philosopher reckons that it's actually a gaudy tartan bonnet.

Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself. A burden, a task that has to be faced by each in a way tenets of science don't. I can lead a blameless life even if I am ignorant of basic laws of physics and chemistry. Not so if I live entirely unwisely.

Soren wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 10:56pm:

Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself.

A bit like the emperor's new clothes.

muso wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 7:47am:

Soren wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:56pm: Ah, there you have it - wisdom is not a matter of conensus in the way science is. 'Nobody can decide' once and for all indeed - except each must decide for himself. A bit like the emperor's new clothes.

Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look.

Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 8:32am:

Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look. Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs.

So what you're saying is that science is like the little boy who cried out "The emperor has no clothes"

To some extent I agree. It certainly enables us to cut through all the hypocrisy and self gratification once you subject the grand emperor (or empress) Philosophia to an analytical assessment based on reality.

Broken down to its etymology, what we are arguing about here is knowledge versus (a love of) wisdom.

It's analogous to ascending some stairs. There are two components.  1. You need to know where you're going. 2. You need to actually have stairs and understand how to walk up them.

You can't have one without the other.

muso wrote on Dec 10^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 3:21pm: Well, sure, but the jury is still out and the findings aren't in. A dualist sees the observer and observed as different phenomena - well, in Kantian terms, neumena and phenomena. A monist, however, sees everything arising from mind - or spirit (for Hegel). So it's the empiricists that are the dualists here, as they believe that the brain is an objective phenomenon that, by observervation through the senses, can be understood by the mind. I don't think there's anything that can be understood outside the context in which you view, interpret or read, so in this sense I'm a monist. I also believe in a universal form of consciousness from which all matter descends, but I wouldn't dream of trying to prove it or quanify it in terms of truth. I think you need to experience it, and I think this experience is what consciousness is. This doesn't mean that all science is wrong because it's based on a system of dualism. I think empiricism has a lot going for it - as long as it maintains a form of humility and stays away from questions of epistemology, or what we can know as truth. I agree with your position that philosophy needs to be based on facts. But I wouldn't call it "reality", because again, this implies an objective form of truth that we all have access to. Brain defects can certainly cause mind defects, but alas, it's the mental defects that are much more common. Hmmm, sometimes I'm not sure if you're just playing with me the way you play with some others. Science takes a dualist approach? Well that's a new way of looking at things. I understand dualism to mean dualism of mind and brain, but I understand your argument too. I think it's daft, but that's ok. At least it's not daft in an arrogant way.

Of course science is dualistic - it divides itself into subject and object, and it labels and categorises ideas, as you say, as truths.

Sure there are natural laws, but can't there be other laws too? Laws of the mind? Laws of justice and ethics?

To be honest, I'm not sure. Sounds a bit dangerous to me.

muso wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 9:22am:

Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:32am: Yes, that' right. there is a touch of that in science. It always produces the little boy in the end, but it can go for a long time between such paradigm shifts. And scientists learn from philosophers and artists to have a fresh look. Philosophy is not enough, to be sure. But it is the corrective science needs. So what you're saying is that science is like the little boy who cried out "The emperor has no clothes"

Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher.

The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:

Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher. The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'.

Scientists are human like everybody else. The strength of science lies in the scientific method.  The scientific method doesn't work on social order or reputation. It works on the strengths of ideas alone.  Of course there is rivalry in Science just as there is in any human activity.  

Peer review of scholars' work has existed at least since it was known as "The Inquisition of the Holy Roman and Catholic Church". It hasn't become any friendlier as a result of modern times.  

If you can demonstrate that your idea is sound and it can survive the barrage of inquisition that is peer review, then you can go from being regarded with suspicion to being recognised as an authority on any given topic in the blink of an eye. It's a friendless cold process.

muso wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 6:45pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:43pm: Yes but remember - that emperor can be someone crowned by science itself. Scientists can be as ideological or dogmatic as any theologian or philosopher. The saving grace for philosophy is that there is no money in it - unlike in what some are pleased to call 'scientific consensus'. Scientists are human like everybody else.

No, they are not. They belive this:

Quote:

The strength of science lies in the scientific method.  The scientific method doesn't work on social order or reputation. It works on the strengths of ideas alone.

The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity.



Quote:

If you can demonstrate that your idea is sound and it can survive the barrage of inquisition that is peer review, then you can go from being regarded with suspicion to being recognised as an authority on any given topic in the blink of an eye. It's a friendless cold process.

It's a bitchy group-think haven.
Didn't work with global cooling/warming/overpopulation/underpopulation/immigration/desalination plants/urban design/architecture/eradication of rabbits/toads/whatever.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2010 at 11:33pm:

60 The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity.

What do you understand about gravity? Can you prove your assertion that gravity is a natural law? - and what do you mean by natural in this context?   :P

muso wrote on Dec 12^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:33pm: 60 The scientific method is not science itself. It's not 'natural law' like gravity. What do you understand about gravity? Can you prove your assertion that gravity is a natural law? - and what do you mean by natural in this context?   :P

This: on a lovely day, when the the hill-side's dew-pearled,  the lark's on the wing, the snail's on the thorn, God's in his Heaven and all's right with the world, you and I are walking arm in arm, discussing the great and the small things in life when, without warning, I push you off a cliff.

WHat happens when you are pushed off that cliff is gravity in facta non verba.

WHat I mean by natural in this context is that everyone who has ever lived will know and understand, without any further explanation, what happens to you when you are pushed off that cliff.

Quote:

Disclaimer: The factual information contained herein may be detrimental to your erroneous preconceptions.

Chapter I — The One Thing Needful
“NOW, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”

The scene was a plain, bare, monotonous vault of a schoolroom, and the speaker’s square forefinger emphasized his observations by underscoring every sentence with a line on the schoolmaster’s sleeve. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s square wall of a forehead, which had his eyebrows for its base, while his eyes found commodious cellarage in two dark caves, overshadowed by the wall. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s mouth, which was wide, thin, and hard set. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s voice, which was inflexible, dry, and dictatorial. The emphasis was helped by the speaker’s hair, which bristled on the skirts of his bald head, a plantation of firs to keep the wind from its shining surface, all covered with knobs, like the crust of a plum pie, as if the head had scarcely warehouse-room for the hard facts stored inside. The speaker’s obstinate carriage, square coat, square legs, square shoulders, — nay, his very neckcloth, trained to take him by the throat with an unaccommodating grasp, like a stubborn fact, as it was, — all helped the emphasis.

“In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!”

The speaker, and the schoolmaster, and the third grown person present, all backed a little, and swept with their eyes the inclined plane of little vessels then and there arranged in order, ready to have imperial gallons of facts poured into them until they were full to the brim.



;D ;D

That signature line is tounge in cheek -  A kind of mock arrogance. I thought you of all people would have appreciated that.

muso wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 4:00pm:

That signature line is tounge in cheek -  A kind of mock arrogance. I thought you of all people would have appreciated that.

And ain't I laughing? I ai.


:P

Now give me your definition of a horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfDmr7hmmOI

:D

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2011 at 4:10pm:

Now give me your definition of a horse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfDmr7hmmOI :D

Donkeys and Mules could also fit that description of a horse.

Sappho wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:31pm:

Donkeys and Mules could also fit that description of a horse.

That a fact??

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:31pm: Donkeys and Mules could also fit that description of a horse. That a fact??

Actually yes, being equine creatures themselves who are shod... kinda brings into question the nature of fact and how much detail is needed to seperate out one fact from another.

Plato said of humans that they are featherless bipeds, so Diogenes plucked a chicken.

Sappho wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 10:49pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:46pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:31pm: Donkeys and Mules could also fit that description of a horse. That a fact?? Actually yes, being equine creatures themselves who are shod... kinda brings into question the nature of fact and how much detail is needed to seperate out one fact from another. Plato said of humans that they are featherless bipeds, so Diogenes plucked a chicken.

At which point Plato added: " and with flat nails"

;)

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2011 at 11:13pm:

Sappho wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:49pm: Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:46pm: Sappho wrote on Apr 2nd, 2011 at 10:31pm: Donkeys and Mules could also fit that description of a horse. That a fact?? Actually yes, being equine creatures themselves who are shod... kinda brings into question the nature of fact and how much detail is needed to seperate out one fact from another. Plato said of humans that they are featherless bipeds, so Diogenes plucked a chicken. At which point Plato added: " and with flat nails" ;)

http://www.medaille.edu/vmacer/120_graphic_15spider_bipedal.jpg

8-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrQf6cogMuI

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2011 at 8:20am:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrQf6cogMuI

Hmmm featherless, bipedal and with flat nails... must be a human and not a gorilla... according to Plato.