tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post1147360126803505640..comments2024-03-09T09:06:35.288+00:00Comments on Notes from Two Scientific Psychologists: Chemero (2009) - A Brief Pause to See Where I'm AtAndrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-33752451179209284222011-05-07T09:23:21.728+01:002011-05-07T09:23:21.728+01:00Have you ever seen Geoff give a talk? The number o...Have you ever seen Geoff give a talk? The number of figures that man can fit on a slide and still have the whole think make sense is epic.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-42670200116334188802011-05-04T12:15:27.742+01:002011-05-04T12:15:27.742+01:00good thing i have you around to summarize the cont...good thing i have you around to summarize the contents of those 13 figures for me!Gavin Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539613027114375642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-8544224468912284052011-05-04T08:01:09.507+01:002011-05-04T08:01:09.507+01:00Then you lose. Turns out doing this properly is ha...Then you lose. Turns out doing this properly is hard.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-13174904977966435192011-05-03T19:02:10.978+01:002011-05-03T19:02:10.978+01:00Mon-Williams & Bingham (2011): TLDRMon-Williams & Bingham (2011): TLDRGavin Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08539613027114375642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-79889141418461469842011-05-03T09:38:39.993+01:002011-05-03T09:38:39.993+01:00Tony, before I forget: as much as I've been ba...Tony, before I forget: as much as I've been banging on about the affordances and information stuff, I do think you've achieved your goal as you described here - laying out that you can do good cognitive science without representations and here's what it might look like, etc. <br /><br />Speaking of doing good science: Geoff and Mark Mon-Williams have a new paper on the affordance structure shaping the spatial features of prehension: it's another Bingham tour de force on the methodology of studying affordances:<br /><br />Mon-Williams M, & Bingham GP (2011) Discovering affordances that determine the spatial structure of reach-to-grasp movements. <i>Experimental Brain Research, 211(1)</i>, 145-160 <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/m734707741801701/" rel="nofollow">Link</a><br /><br />I'll blog this in some detail when I have time, but it's a damn good read.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-46258364599996035662011-04-26T17:22:07.845+01:002011-04-26T17:22:07.845+01:00I don't think Ken's arguments apply anyway...I don't think Ken's arguments apply anyway, but that's another story :)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-32519420219964641742011-04-21T03:41:52.672+01:002011-04-21T03:41:52.672+01:00Yes, I am on board.
In fact, one of the main re...Yes, I am on board. <br /><br />In fact, one of the main reasons I wrote the book is to let philosophers of science and (ugh) mind know that there is high-quality Normal Science going on that rejects all of their assumptions. The second main reason, and the reason for the "shoring up" (a phrase from the publicist that I'm not sure I actually used in the book) is that I wanted to do away with all the reasons said philosophers of science and mind would reject this Normal Science as being conceptually confused in one way or the other. <br /><br />So, I think Andrew's arguments with Ken Aizawa should be different from his arguments with me because what I'm really trying to do is save Andrew from having arguments with Ken! As Andrew hinted a while back in an exchange with Ken, the criticisms Ken has made of Turvey et al and Gibson over on his blog don't apply in the same way to the slightly altered version of ecological psych that I (and Rob Withagen) have been pushing.<br /><br />I realize that it's making all my eco psych friends mad at me, but I really am trying to help.Tony Chemerohttp://edisk.fandm.edu/tony.chemeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-58195442987656816102011-04-19T20:04:34.441+01:002011-04-19T20:04:34.441+01:00I agree with all that, basically, and I'm sure...I agree with all that, basically, and I'm sure you guys are on board with the idea. It wasn't a swing at anyone, promise :) <br /><br />I think psychology has problems with philosophy of science because we don't actually have a central theory. Sabrina and I started this blog based on discussions we were having about our frustrations about this issue, and the more I think about it the clearer this fact seems to be. <br /><br />Then the fact that Gibson gets so little play in psychology makes me cranky, because it really is one hell of a theory. It could 100% wrong and still be the best theory psychology has had, possibly ever. People nick the ideas, talk about them wrong, then dismiss Gibson because their version makes no sense. It's like the psychologist's meta-fallacy :)<br /><br />Even though I don't buy Tony's shored up eco-psych, at least I know where I stand now having engaged with his book and I trust that stance. That's a win.<br /><br />Clearly, it's time for a holiday :) I'm off as of tomorrow for a week, so if I don't reply, that's why.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732977871048876430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192597712746432631.post-40025612946439535452011-04-19T15:53:23.044+01:002011-04-19T15:53:23.044+01:00Re your "A Side Note":
I think Tony and...Re your "A Side Note": <br />I think Tony and I are in complete agreement with you. This was one of the first things we talked about when I visited his class a couple of weeks ago. When paradigms are functioning properly, most people don't think about them much - most people just do research. <br /><br />I'm not sure why psychological science can't find a balanced relationship with philosophy of psychology, as physics research or biology research have found with philosophy of physics or biology. Either the philosophy is totally ignored and shunned (compare top university psych departments vs. bio or physics) or the philosophical issues completely dominate and little research happens. <br /><br />One thing I liked about Tony's book is that the examples came from real research programs, reinforcing the idea that the point is for this stuff to be useful. Even his discussion about the "reality" of affordances can be summarized as: If you can do good research with them, then we might as well just call them real and get on with it.Eric Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17412168482569793996noreply@blogger.com