(no subject)

[twincityhacker]

I wrote "...experimentation without theory is dumb, as theory without experimentation is blind."

Professor wrote back, "Consider word choice: dumb."

Clearly, putting in anything above literals in a science paper is considered Bad Form.

Of course, writing anything in a paper for me is Bad Form as I apparently cannot write scientific papers to save my life. And I completely disagree with the philosophical foundations of cognitive science, which isn't helping matters either. This is because most people who study cog sci think that Behaviorism is icky and wrong. Some reasons are valid, some are extraordinarily stupid.

One of the problems with behaviorism - actually, radical behaviorism, but anyway - is call the "one too many" problem. The idea is that if you sit someone down in front of a Rembrandt - the stimulus - they can have any number of responses, from "Beautiful." to "Dutch" to "Doesn't go with the wallpaper."

Then it hit me - I need to use the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle! Yeah, like cog sci isn't interdisciplinary enough!

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_medley_/]

Cognitive people: Humans are not rats and pigeons!

Behaviorists: No, except in the ways that we are.

And round it goes. Lather, rinse, repeat. *g*

[hideyuki-tah.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with people sticking to one method in general. Even crazy ol' Freud had some valid points.

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

I wrote "...experimentation without theory is dumb, as theory without experimentation is blind."

Let's think, for a moment, about what "dumb" means.

Think of the phrase "deaf and dumb". That's what the word means. Someone who is deaf is cut off, unable to relate, to connect to the rest of the world. "Experimentation without theory is cut off; unable to communicate anything; in a word, dumb."

Not quite the case I'd make, but certainly a defendable position.

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

The part I have problems with is that I've yet to hear something that has smaller holes in it than behaviorism - mostly, it's been slightly scientific batshit, IMHO. ( Then again, it's mostly just been Functionalism. )

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

I couldn't get the professor to understand that argument. I don't know why, as the phrase he wants me to change it to "experimentation without theory is ill-advised." isn't as good - it leaves out the feedback loop between experimentation and theory, while the entire flipping point of the sentence is the interconnectedness of the two!

I know he cares, I just don't understand what part of the paper is he caring about the most.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_medley_/]

Functionalism to me sort of seems like trying to make something sound scientific that really isn't. Well, that's basically what you said, isn't it?

One of my favorite psych profs was a behaviorist, so I have a bit of a soft spot for it.

[aeshna_uk]

Actually, in terms of word choice, I think I can see what he's getting at. "Dumb" means "incapable of communication", but it also means "stupid", which was how I read your sentence on first viewing (and the "ill-advised" thing suggests that he's read it that way too). Would "mute" give the same idea you're going for?

[msp-hacker.livejournal.com]

It does - it's just frustrating. And that I was almost positive that dumb/blind was a saying.