tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post6839527813843426005..comments2024-03-09T09:06:35.288+00:00Comments on Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists: Chemero (2009), Chapter 1: Hegelian Arguments in Cognitive ScienceAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-39706147051332571982011-03-24T16:34:22.761+00:002011-03-24T16:34:22.761+00:00I definitely agree with Andrew's comment. Init...I definitely agree with Andrew's comment. Initially one of my fellow classmates found it difficult to correlate the math in the planet argument, with the thought of cognitive thinking. I think this was due in large part to the fact that math would be expected to be used in more of a straight forward situation, where as cognitive thinking requires a bit more depth.G.Abramsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-10870608897104793512011-03-22T10:29:06.858+00:002011-03-22T10:29:06.858+00:00I think that is is interesting how cognitive scien...<i>I think that is is interesting how cognitive science is so young whenever everyone should have considered it as a science whenever people founded the first science. </i><br />Well, to be fair, people have been trying to tackle this problem for a long time - you can always count on the Ancient Greeks to have had a good swing at your problem first :)<br /><br /><i>I found that Hegel's planet argument is peculiar because he believes math is the cause and reasoning of everything. I understand that the planets have a specific rotation, but I think if it was thrown off a little the universe wouldn't blow up</i><br />It does sound odd, doesn't it - this idea of mathematical necessity, that somehow doing some maths could that something simply must be true. Again, though, in fairness, good maths can take you a long way so long as you remember, as you say, the universe isn't actually made out of it :)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-18658610801551029252011-03-21T17:58:20.636+00:002011-03-21T17:58:20.636+00:00I think that is is interesting how cognitive scien...I think that is is interesting how cognitive science is so young whenever everyone should have considered it as a science whenever people founded the first science. Our minds are a science in their own. Since cognitive science is so young I agree with Chemero that many ideas cannot be thrown out in the first several years of the discovery of this science because the investigation should be thoroughly thought through and disproved before it needs to be rejected.<br />I found that Hegel's planet argument is peculiar because he believes math is the cause and reasoning of everything. I understand that the planets have a specific rotation, but I think if it was thrown off a little the universe wouldn't blow up... I do have a bias against math though because I do not like to think it has a say in everything. I'm going to stick to my cognitive thinking & take in as much information as possible on others opinions on these matters [=<br />-Kasey KowalskiK. Kowalskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-50425267467928983792011-03-14T07:04:59.894+00:002011-03-14T07:04:59.894+00:00I knew Michael a little at IU, and yes, his stuff ...I knew Michael a little at IU, and yes, his stuff is excellent. The babbling work was great, really top quality.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-46724377448066218212011-03-14T03:28:36.938+00:002011-03-14T03:28:36.938+00:00Andrew, Alex,
Have you seen the stuff coming out o...Andrew, Alex,<br />Have you seen the stuff coming out of Michael Goldstein's lab at Cornell (http://babylab.psych.cornell.edu/). It is really great stuff that supports Skinner's approach vs. Chomsky. Michael is showing reinforcement shaping pre-language in "micro-genetic" interactions and longitudinally in parent-infant interactions!Eric Charleshttp://charlespsychology.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-7169238913935617442011-03-13T18:45:39.552+00:002011-03-13T18:45:39.552+00:00Alex, you might enjoy this blog, Child's Play....Alex, you might enjoy <a href="http://scientopia.org/blogs/childsplay/" rel="nofollow">this blog, Child's Play</a>. I'm not as in awe of Dye as she is of herself, but she does work in a language lab that's trying to really tackle the Chomsky-dominance of the field with good, modern, learning style research. You'd have a lot on common re: Chomsky :)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-87299343484993864532011-03-13T18:02:10.008+00:002011-03-13T18:02:10.008+00:00This chapter was a task for me to grasp at the beg...This chapter was a task for me to grasp at the beginning, as it was discussed things got better. I agree that everyone has a theory and everyone wants to be right, yet everyone is right in their own way about their theories. We have all these to solve for different things. Some are better than others.Gaby Gnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-52426574773788373932011-03-12T03:36:34.834+00:002011-03-12T03:36:34.834+00:00I'm an undergrad reading Chemero's book fo...I'm an undergrad reading Chemero's book for a class on Advance Behaviorism and Conditioning. This first chapter hit home in the section about the conversation between two cognitive scientists. Although I have never been in this conversation I see this type of talk when certain authors discuss "the fall of behaviorism" (mainly my Ev. Psych book by Cartwright) Too many times I have seen Chomsky's review of Verbal Behavior mentioned as one of the major contributions to psychology turning its back on behaviorism. His claims in the review didn't destroy the fundamentals of behaviorist ideologies and Chomsky had no empirical data supporting the POTS claims. His arguments were based on a misunderstanding of Skinner (or so Skinner says and I believe him). Its disappointing that authors to this day cite Chomsky's review as a reason that behaviorism approach was shown to be "hopeless" due to such an argument like Chomsky's which Chemero cites as a Hegelian arguments.Alex Duffordhttp://www.facebook.com/alex.duffordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-5193785739863683272011-03-08T22:16:18.325+00:002011-03-08T22:16:18.325+00:00I tend to find it a little difficult to catch on t...I tend to find it a little difficult to catch on to his mathematical examples, but I do enjoy such a summary on the first chapter of this book. I think probably the basis of all these Hegelian arguments is just the fact that everyone wants their own theory, and everyone also wants to be right. I also find this amusing how he says about them being around because of immaturity (to which everyone at each others throats for one scrap of meat really is an immature thing). Everything should be analyzed until there is some form of solid base to the theory (like the example of a planet between mars). until it is properly assessed that it's clearly not right, we really don't have the right to rule out or rule in a certain theory.<br /><br />though going from the first chapter to the second had me wanting to drop out of school and join the circus, it seems to be progressing much better throughout the chapters with elaborating on the mathematical representations. However, the first chapter is definitely a baseline for the entire book, giving an overview of everything. Everything in the later chapters always seem to be capable of being traced back to the first, which is probably my favorite plus for Chemero's book.<br /><br />Christin Ricketts :)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17700028337143507973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-78379944270326302272011-03-06T13:38:52.110+00:002011-03-06T13:38:52.110+00:00Hi Eric
Thanks for stopping by! If you have anyth...Hi Eric<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by! If you have anything you feel like adding as we go, please feel free.<br /><br />I've been enjoying re-reading this in enough detail to blog, for the reason you say - everything set up early on gets used. It's certainly more a philosophical book than an empirical one, though.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-65466112982570751262011-03-06T05:12:18.741+00:002011-03-06T05:12:18.741+00:00Excellent review. I am forced to delve my notes to...Excellent review. I am forced to delve my notes to see if I can find something to add. <br /><br />One odd thing about this chapter worth emphasizing is that it makes absolutely no argument for RECS, nor even explain what it is! This is not problematic in the long run, because the entire book is working towards those goals. Chapter 1 is simply "clearing a space" into which the later arguments can fall unimpeded. <br /><br />However, a book that really caries an arc through 200 pages is rare these days... This traditional style of book writing will likely be a bit off-putting for some readers, particularly the experimental psychology crowd that will be expecting either hard hitting data or vicious intellectual arguments from the start. Being part of that group, it left me wanting more, and I was unsure whether in a good way or a bad way. It did work well though, and felt more and more appropriate as the reading continued.Eric Charleshttp://charlespsychology.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-1976745529981703692011-02-16T09:07:28.188+00:002011-02-16T09:07:28.188+00:00Glad you'll be around for this, Tony. I'm ...Glad you'll be around for this, Tony. I'm enjoying the process of reading and taking notes this way; it's really helped me wrap my head around the book. The first few chapters will be straight forward, I think, but I have lots to say about the later chapters :)<br /><br />These types of arguments are a real problem, though. I've always had trouble even conveying the basic ideas of ecological psychology to cognitive people, because this incommensurability just gets in the way. I do tend to think eco-psych people tend to be more informed about the broader lay of the land: until I worked with Geoff, my training was all pretty standard cognitive type research. I find I know more about their arguments than they do about mine, which is useful but frustrating.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-19792919433821390402011-02-15T19:34:17.870+00:002011-02-15T19:34:17.870+00:00Thanks, Andrew, for spending so much time on this....Thanks, Andrew, for spending so much time on this. It is much appreciated. I promise to break my lifetime of blog silence to weigh in from time to time. Weighing in here, I think this is a fair summary of the chapter.<br /><br />I'd like to point to something that maybe isn't as clear as it could be in the chapter. Here it is: EVERYONE makes Hegelian arguments. The folks on our (eco/dynamic) side are just as prone to do so as the opposition. And a priori arguments that computational psychology is bound to fail because it can can never account for X should be just as unconvincing as a priori arguments that only computational psych can account for X. These are all bad arguments, even if you happen to agree with the conclusions.<br /><br />Why, it is fair to ask, did I fail to bring up Hegelian arguments made by dynamics types or Gibsonians in the chapter? The answer, I suppose, is that I knew that I would be pissing Turvey and Shaw enough in later chapters.Tony Chemerohttp://edisk.fandm.edu/tony.chemeronoreply@blogger.com