Article View: sci.cognitive
Article #455Re: Cog Psych theories
From: Christopher Green
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:57
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:57
41 lines
2618 bytes
2618 bytes
In article <1993Jan27.101200.14835@news.unige.ch> swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip) writes: >In article <1993Jan23.015123.12162@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes: > >Surely formalization is neither necessary nor sufficient for a theory >to be powerful or productive. At the very least, it's highly desirable. >There's a theory at the moment that the >Dinosaurs were warm-blooded: I don't see how this theory could be >formalized, nor do I see how it relies on our "intuitions" - but I'm sure >that it's an interesting theory that contributes to scientific progress. It's also embedded in evolutionary theory, which is highly articulated, if not actually formalized. To the degree that evolutionary theory has been informal, it has sufferred from many of the criticisms I mentioned before. Until it was linked up with genetic theory -- therby offering *means* of hereditary transmission -- it was hardly taken seriously. As for reliance on intuitions, you've stumbled right into the problem. It is often *very* difficult to see how theories rely crucially on our pre-theoretic intuitions until they've been around for a very long time. The problem has been particularly damaging in psychology, where unexplicated terminology has often turned out, upon analysis, to make theories utterly circular. Fortunately, with J-L et al., it's not so hard to see, since they give *no definitions whatsoever* of crucial terms such as model, schema, and the like. There's an excellent critique of this in an unpublished paper by Jaakko Hintikka called "Mental models, semantical games, and varieties of intelligence". (I know it's bad form to cite unpublished papers, but what can I do? Send me a self-addressed, self-stamped envelope, and I'll send you a copy. US postage ok.) Also see Lance Rips' "Mental muddles" in Brand & Harnish's _The representation of knowledge and belief_. -- Christopher D. Green christo@psych.toronto.edu Psychology Department cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan27.205744.21558@psych.toronto.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!geac!utcsri!psych.toronto.edu!christoReferences:
<22JAN93.20070220.0093@VM1.MCGILL.CA> <1993Jan23.015123.12162@psych.toronto.edu> <1993Jan27.101200.14835@news.unige.ch>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!uunet.ca!geac!utcsri!psych.toronto.edu!christo From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) Subject: Re: Cog Psych theories Message-ID: <1993Jan27.205744.21558@psych.toronto.edu> Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto References: <22JAN93.20070220.0093@VM1.MCGILL.CA> <1993Jan23.015123.12162@psych.toronto.edu> <1993Jan27.101200.14835@news.unige.ch> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:57:44 GMT Lines: 41