Friam

Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Classic

List

Threaded

50 messages Options

123

Jochen Fromm-5

Unsolved Problems in Psychology

The classical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and psychology
are similar, they seem to be largely completed and self-contained
fields. The major phenomena and subfields are well known, and the
available research methods are applied to all common phenomena.
The unsolved problems seem to lie between and beyond the disciplines,
when things start to get very complex, for example between psychology
and neuroscience, or between biology and molecular genetics.

We can not really say how genes generate a living organism
or how neurons interact to produce a mind in detail. And
there is still a large gap between mental processes, abstract
thoughts or subjective feelings on the one hand,
and concrete brain circuits, neural correlates or
molecular processes on the other hand.

Do you think it is possible to bridge the gap between psychology
and neuroscience using some kind of sociological/ecological
approach by an "society or ecology of mind", as proposed by
Marvin Minsky and Gregory Bateson, respectively?
Eric has written about "ecologcial psychology" in his blog
"Fixing Psychology" a couple of times (without mentioning Bateson
or FRIAM, though). What do you think, is this a promising approach?

-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Jochen,
As an indirect answer to your question: One reason why physics, chemistry, and biology seem to be largely complete and self-contained fields is through the progressive banishment of the magical explanations for their phenomenon. There are many traditions in psychology which have, to a greater or lesser extent, been successful in banishing magical explanations, however the currently dominant approach - cognitive psychology - is all about magic. The entire basis of Chomsky's critique of Skinner, for example, was an unflinching faith that magic was needed to account for verbal behavior, and hence that any approach not based in magic must be wrong.

One reason that psychology is stuck with this burden, I suspect, is that the "hard sciences" have pretended that dualism is not a problem for them due to their heavy reliance on instruments, and they have convinced others to join them in this myth by trying to foist all the problems of dualism onto psychology.

There seems to me little hope that the borders between psychology and other sciences (e.g. neuroscience) will be solved until these more fundamental issues are dealt with. (For example, there is much magic invoked in this report.)

Oddly, quite similar problems stand between genetic and organismal biology. People have become so infatuated with DNA, that several magical properties are attributed to it (e.g., that it 'stores a plan' for the organism, or 'codes' for a specific, macroscopic, body trait).

Eric

On Sun, May 13, 2012 12:20 PM, "Jochen Fromm" <[hidden email]> wrote:

The classical sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and psychology 
are similar, they seem to be largely completed and self-contained 
fields. The major phenomena and subfields are well known, and the 
available research methods are applied to all common phenomena.
The unsolved problems seem to lie between and beyond the disciplines,
when things start to get very complex, for example between psychology 
and neuroscience, or between biology and molecular genetics.

We can not really say how genes generate a living organism
or how neurons interact to produce a mind in detail. And
there is still a large gap between mental processes, abstract 
thoughts or subjective feelings on the one hand,
and concrete brain circuits, neural correlates or
molecular processes on the other hand.

Do you think it is possible to bridge the gap between psychology 
and neuroscience using some kind of sociological/ecological 
approach by an "society or ecology of mind", as proposed by
Marvin Minsky and Gregory Bateson, respectively?
Eric has written about "ecologcial psychology" in his blog 
"Fixing Psychology" a couple of times (without mentioning Bateson
or FRIAM, though). What do you think, is this a promising approach?

-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
replaced phrenology, etc
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
waiting to be replaced?

-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Omigosh! The month-long exile is over! And I only broke it once.
I can actually live a whole month without mouthing off in an annoying way on
FRIAM.

Trouble is, now I can't remember what I think about anything. My basic
position is that progress in psychology has been stymied by the allure of
circular reasoning. "My mind is whatever causes me to do stuff. Why do I
do stuff? It's my mind, of course, silly." Such a theory is not subject
to falsification, or even qualification.

Here's a game we could play for a while, and see where we get: You state a
problem in psychology, and I will try to tell you whether it has been solved
or not.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:25 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by scientific
ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy, astronomy has replaced
astrology, neuropsychology has replaced phrenology, etc
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick back to the list from his
self-chosen exile by asking some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is waiting to be replaced?

-J.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were
grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given
all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be
snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,
somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the
best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly
understood context, and makes a leap.

C

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
> replaced phrenology, etc
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
> waiting to be replaced?
>
> -J.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

That sounds like a fun game.

Putting my predictor's hat on, I think that you will need three classes of judgment: 1) That problem is solved. 2) That problem is not solved. 3) That question is ill-formed, and hence is not a potentially-solvable problem in its present form.

Eric

P.S. Since it is relevant to this list, a recent blog post on whether we should make computer programming a more central part of the college curriculum: http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2012/05/is-computer-programing-important-part.html

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:37 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Omigosh!  The month-long exile is over!  And I only broke it once.  
I can actually live a whole month without mouthing off in an annoying way on
FRIAM. 

Trouble is, now I can't remember what I think about anything.  My basic
position is that progress in psychology has been stymied by the allure of
circular reasoning.   "My mind is whatever causes me to do stuff.  Why do I
do stuff?  It's my mind, of course, silly."   Such a theory is not subject
to falsification, or even qualification.  

Here's a game we could play for a while, and see where we get:  You state a
problem in psychology, and I will try to tell you whether it has been solved
or not.  

Nick 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:25 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by scientific
ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy, astronomy has replaced
astrology, neuropsychology has replaced phrenology, etc
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick back to the list from his
self-chosen exile by asking some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is waiting to be replaced?

-J.


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander

Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.

Eric

P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were 
grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given 
all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be 
snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody, 
somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the 
best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly 
understood context, and makes a leap.

C

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
> replaced phrenology, etc
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
> waiting to be replaced?
>
> -J.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Carl Tollander

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.

As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe, specifically.

Carl

On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.

Eric

P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander [hidden email] wrote:
OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were 
grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given 
all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be 
snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody, 
somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the 
best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly 
understood context, and makes a leap.

C

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
> replaced phrenology, etc
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
> waiting to be replaced?
>
> -J.
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Carl Tollander

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Eric,

Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.

Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline.

Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved scientific questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse.

C

On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Well, to make two more general claims then:

1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.

2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.

Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent?

Eric

On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander [hidden email] wrote:
Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.

As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe, specifically.

Carl

On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:

Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.

Eric

P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <carl@...> wrote:

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology? Are there criteria you can state succinctly? Where did those criteria come from? If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim. All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody, somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly understood context, and makes a leap. C On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: > It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by > scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy, > astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has > replaced phrenology, etc > http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/ > > I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick > back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking > some provocative questions. What would Nick say, > are there any unsolved problems in psychology? > Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is > waiting to be replaced? > > -J. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM
To: ERIC P. CHARLES
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Well, to make two more general claims then:

1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.

2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.

Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent?

Eric

On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander [hidden email] wrote:

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

> -J.

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

John Kennison

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven?

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM
To: ERIC P. CHARLES
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Eric,

Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.

Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline.

Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved scientific questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse.

C

On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Well, to make two more general claims then:

1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.

2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.

Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent?

Eric

On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.

As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe, specifically.

Carl

On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.

Eric

P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

C

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

>

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

>

> -J.

>

>

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

>

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Richard Harris-3

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

This all reminds me of story my physics prof told us as an introduction to rotating coordinate system. Basically, the British Navy thought they had the cannonball problem solved. That is until they sailed south of the equator, tried shooting, and quickly discovered they didn't really have the cannonball problem solved. ;-)

Of course, that was several hundred years ago.

Rich

On 17 May 2012, at 13:23, John Kennison wrote:

>
>
> The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven?
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM
> To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
>
> Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got.
>
> N
>
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM
> To: ERIC P. CHARLES
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
>
> Eric,
>
> Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.
>
> Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline.
>
> Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved scientific questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse.
>
> C
>
> On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
> Well, to make two more general claims then:
>
> 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.
>
> 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.
>
> Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent?
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
> Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.
>
> As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe, specifically.
>
> Carl
>
> On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
> Carl,
> My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.
>
> Eric
>
> P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.
>
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
>
> Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
>
> Where did those criteria come from?
>
>
>
> If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were
>
> grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given
>
> all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be
>
> snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.
>
>
>
> All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,
>
> somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the
>
> best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly
>
> understood context, and makes a leap.
>
>
>
> C
>
>
>
> On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
>> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
>
>> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
>
>> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
>
>> replaced phrenology, etc
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>
>>
>
>> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
>
>> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
>
>> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
>
>> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
>
>> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
>
>> waiting to be replaced?
>
>>
>
>> -J.
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> ============================================================
>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> Eric Charles
>
> Professional Student and
> Assistant Professor of Psychology
> Penn State University
> Altoona, PA 16601
>
> Eric Charles
>
> Professional Student and
> Assistant Professor of Psychology
> Penn State University
> Altoona, PA 16601
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Richard Harris-3

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Correction: This story seems to go back to the battle of the Falklands in WW1 between the British and German navies. And it's not clear if it's true. It's entertaining nonetheless.

Rich

On 17 May 2012, at 14:00, Richard Harris wrote:

> This all reminds me of story my physics prof told us as an introduction to rotating coordinate system. Basically, the British Navy thought they had the cannonball problem solved. That is until they sailed south of the equator, tried shooting, and quickly discovered they didn't really have the cannonball problem solved. ;-)
>
>
> Of course, that was several hundred years ago.
>
> Rich
>
>
> On 17 May 2012, at 13:23, John Kennison wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So what psychological theories have been disproven?
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson [[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM
>> To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
>>
>> Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth (or “solved”) is like “settled law”. It could come undone any time, but usually doesn’t. (Actually, I have that wrong. Truth is what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that that’s what we got.
>>
>> N
>>
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM
>> To: ERIC P. CHARLES
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology
>>
>> Eric,
>>
>> Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.
>>
>> Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple. Yet, one has to start somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple on the face of it. I don't agree, by any stretch, that all 'bright minds' are necessarily scientists. Science, as I understand it, is a continuous process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate. I do not see that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever discipline.
>>
>> Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent? Yes, since I think science is about rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved scientific questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent. Which is not at all to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse.
>>
>> C
>>
>> On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
>> Well, to make two more general claims then:
>>
>> 1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest. Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.
>>
>> 2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists - wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to do tech with it.
>>
>> Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do you think the category is incoherent?
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved". How do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off. Still, do we understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of quantum mechanics, well, no. So there again is my worry about the notion of "solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.
>>
>> As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe, specifically.
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
>> Carl,
>> My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved.... and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general rule will emerge.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>> P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago, parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?
>>
>> Are there criteria you can state succinctly?
>>
>> Where did those criteria come from?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do. Folks were
>>
>> grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given
>>
>> all the other things they were thinking about. I'm not prepared to be
>>
>> snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.
>>
>>
>>
>> All explanations worth their salt start out magical. Somebody,
>>
>> somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the
>>
>> best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly
>>
>> understood context, and makes a leap.
>>
>>
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>>
>>> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by
>>
>>> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,
>>
>>> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has
>>
>>> replaced phrenology, etc
>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick
>>
>>> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking
>>
>>> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,
>>
>>> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?
>>
>>> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is
>>
>>> waiting to be replaced?
>>
>>>
>>
>>> -J.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> ============================================================
>>
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>>
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Charles
>>
>> Professional Student and
>> Assistant Professor of Psychology
>> Penn State University
>> Altoona, PA 16601
>>
>> Eric Charles
>>
>> Professional Student and
>> Assistant Professor of Psychology
>> Penn State University
>> Altoona, PA 16601
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander

Hi, Carl,

Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction.

Can Eric tell the difference? Can I tell the difference? Can Carl tell the difference? Is engineering the same as science? Is control the same as understanding? Jochem: Is it time for me to go back into exile?

Nick

PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit”

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16 PM
To: ERIC P. CHARLES
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

> -J.

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Many psychological theories have been disproven. Most of the disproven theories are long forgotten, which occasionally leads to their reappearance and a subsequent re-disproving. One problem in psychology is that many people are in denial about the range of things that have been disproven. For example, learning does not require a brain; intelligence is affected by genetics; men are better at some things and women are better at others; many human behaviors are best modeled as closed-loop systems; the state of gut bacteria is tremendously important in determining mood, often more so than "external" factors or anything you can measure about the brain; behavior is typically best predicted by a person's location, not by their "personality"; you could list over 20 disproven hypotheses regarding the moon illusion; you could list many disproven hypotheses regarding the "cognitive" factors that predict how long an infant will stare at a display; etc., etc., etc. Of course, any of these could be phrased in terms of 'proving' or 'disproving' depending on how you wanted to phrase the initial hypothesis, and some would prefer to say that 'support' or 'fair to support', etc.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 08:23 AM, John Kennison <[hidden email]> wrote:

The Cannonball trajectory problem seems to be solved, but maybe we need to take
relativity or whatever into consideration for certain cannonballs. Or maybe
cannonballs will start to behave differently next year (for example if
basic physical constants can suddenly shift). But we can (I
think) disprove the roadrunner theory of falling. The important thing
about scientific theories is that we can imagine ways of disproving them. So
what psychological theories have been disproven?

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Nicholas  Thompson [[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:18 AM
To: [hidden email]; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Well, On Peirce’s account (yes I am still reading Peirce) Truth
(or “solved”) is like “settled law”.  It could come undone
any time, but usually doesn’t.   (Actually, I have that wrong.  Truth is
what wouldn’t come undone, but, of course, we never live to be sure that
that’s what we got.

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Carl Tollander
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 10:16 PM
To: ERIC P. CHARLES
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Eric,

Re: 1) humming makes my sinuses happy, generally.

Re: 2) I quite agree, it's not so simple.  Yet, one has to start
somewhere, and the 'magical thinking' pejoration is, by my lights, kinda simple
on the face of it.   I don't agree, by any stretch,  that all 'bright minds'
are necessarily scientists.  Science, as I understand it, is a continuous
process of intensively figuring out what are the right questions to ask and
wondering how to interpret such data as one can find or generate.  I do not see
that it is legitimate, even in science terms, to cast the folks who sincerely
tried to make sense of their experience as living in cartoons because they did
not choose to live in the context of one's decades of training in whatever
discipline.

Re: Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or
do you think the category is incoherent?  Yes, since I think science is about
rigorously evolving questions, yep, the notion of "solved scientific
questions" is indeed, at the very least, incoherent.  Which is not at all
to imply one can't aim one's canon, but that's a different world of discourse.

C

On 5/16/12 9:45 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Well, to make two more general claims then:

1) I am not sure anyone is able to play the game in the order you suggest.
Oh, some people can hum a few bars, but until you break out specific examples
and dig into the details of them, it is just humming.

2) The line between a tech problem and a science problem cannot possibly
be as simple as you suggest. By my read, at one point the trajectory of a
cannon ball was a scientific question, there was a genuine question of how a
cannon ball flew, and bright minds - people we would now call scientists -
wrestled with the possibilities (a startlingly large part of the
population still think falling works like the roadrunner cartoons). I
can't see how you think it is a "tech problem".... except.... in so
much as it is a solved question, it is now something that it is fairly easy to
do tech with it.

Is there anything you think is a "solved scientific question" or do
you think the category is incoherent?

Eric

On Wed, May 16, 2012 11:15 PM, Carl Tollander
<[hidden email]><mailto:[hidden email]> wrote:
Eric, so you've got a tech problem, not a science problem, and sure, the tech
problem of trajectories wrt local gravitation can be "solved".  How
do I aim the cannon (or the canon) and better, how do I metabolize my
error when my initial notion turns out to be a bit off.  Still, do we
understand gravitation in the (apparently more general) context of
quantum mechanics, well, no.  So there again is my worry about the notion of
"solved a problem", which seems, um, problematic.

As to your idea of "the game", my text was in reply to Jochen and
perhaps others who, perhaps, had weighed in on the idea of "magical
thinking" as, somehow, a bad thing, rather than Nick's inner universe,
specifically.

Carl

On 5/16/12 8:41 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote:
Carl,
My guess is that Nick can't play the game to anyone's satisfaction in the order
you proposed. He could go down that road, but it will digress endlessly and
readers will become sad. The only way to have things stay on topic is for
someone to propose things until they find one Nick thinks has been solved....
and only then will he be able to explain in any satisfactory detail what it
means (to him) for that particular problem to be solved. If five
things are found that he thinks are solved, presumably some sort of general
rule will emerge.

Eric

P.S. To flip the question (and please rename the thread if you take this
bait): As far as I am concerned the problem of the path of a cannon ball
shot out of a cannon is solved. It was solved several hundred years ago,
parabolic trajectory, a little wind resistance, blah, blah, blah. If you think
that problem is not solved, I would love to know the sense in which it is not.

On Wed, May 16, 2012 09:39 PM, Carl Tollander <[hidden email]> wrote:

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

C

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

>

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

>

> -J.

>

>

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

>

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Jochen Fromm-5

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

Nick, my name is Jochen. I know 'Jochen Fromm' is hard to pronounce for an English speaking person. At least I share the same name (and fate, in this regard) as Erich Fromm, the famous social psychologist. I like psychology, and I enjoy the interdisciplinary discussions here. Without Eric and you, the topics would revolve mainly around technology and local issues of Santa Fe. Therefore it is nice that you are back, although you still can't remember by name correctly ;-)

Jochen

Sent from Android

Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Carl,

Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction.

Nick

PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit”

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

> -J.

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Arlo Barnes

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.

Nick Thompson

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Jochen Fromm-5

Jochen,

I know very well what your name is. I just can’t type! Sorry.

Nich Tompshon.

PS: I pronounce it in my head, “ZHAW-ken”. Is that approximately correct?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 4:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; [hidden email]; 'ERIC P. CHARLES'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Jochen

Sent from Android

Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Carl,

Been thinking about this “tech problem” – “science problem” distinction.

Nick

PS: There are them’s what thinks that “Understanding = Control + Bullshit”

From: [hidden email] [hidden email] On Behalf Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:16 PM
To: ERIC P. CHARLES
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Unsolved Problems in Psychology

OK, what does it MEAN to you to have solved a problem in psychology?

Are there criteria you can state succinctly?

Where did those criteria come from?

If you really can't say, phlogiston will have to do.   Folks were

grappling with how to describe their inner experiences coherently, given

all the other things they were thinking about.  I'm not prepared to be

snarky about how they were (or are) deluded, or ignorant, or dim.

All explanations worth their salt start out magical.   Somebody,

somewhere, somehow, perceives that the best data they can access or the

best conversations they can find, don't make sense in some newly

understood context, and makes a leap.

On 5/16/12 4:25 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:

> It is the task of science to replace magical explanations by

> scientific ones, isn't it? Chemistry has replaced alchemy,

> astronomy has replaced astrology, neuropsychology has

> replaced phrenology, etc

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mysticpolitics/6333162973/

> I must admit I was hoping we could lure Nick

> back to the list from his self-chosen exile by asking

> some provocative questions. What would Nick say,

> are there any unsolved problems in psychology?

> Is there still any phlogiston theory in it which is

> waiting to be replaced?

> -J.

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Eric Charles

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

In reply to this post by Eric Charles

Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Russ Abbott

Re: Unsolved Problems in Psychology

Perhaps we can approach the question of which problems in psychology have been solved by asking which published results are generally accepted. I suspect there are quite a few--even if most of them are relatively low level.

-- Russ

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES <[hidden email]> wrote:

Arlo, I agree completely about the process point.

I was a bit less certain when you said, "something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those [people] involved in the study"

I assume you would consider a person to be part of the physical world, treatable in most ways like any other type of object. Yes? If so, how is your statement different than the following,

"something difficult about chemistry is that much of the data has to be collected through something else - those chemicals involved in the study"

Eric

On Thu, May 17, 2012 06:23 PM, Arlo Barnes <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems so far science and tech have been regarded as thing, or adjectives to describe 'problem' - whereas I consider them processes (and to a much lesser extent philosophies in the) and not necessarily even ones with discrete ends, but more a recursive approach - I see a phenomena, I make a 'magic' explanation, I collect data on it, and see if the magic matches the data. If not, I revise the explanation. If so, I see if it predicts more data. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Really we are making rules (that are not perfect and have exceptions, and are therefore not 'done') and making more rules that govern the exceptions (and those rules also have exceptions). So we have something asymptotically approaching whatever objective Truth/reality there is by way of infinite regression. Then if we are doing tech, we makes things that take advantage of this set of rules and therefore work most of the time.
I think something difficult about psychology is that much of the data has to be collected through someone else - those involved in the study.
-Arlo James Barnes.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

123