Honestly, does everything you don't agree with have to be followed with a snarky remark about being "pedestrian" "stupid" and "beneath you"? I would be less inclined to want to spew vitriol if you didn't sour the waters so quickly and for no good reason other than being smug and promoting yourself as superior in all philosophical thought.. Has the efficacy of internet philosophy been reduced to how smarmy you can be to your interlocutor in a quick one-liner? (Please don't be ironic and try to have a one-liner answer in response :-} )Frankly, I'd deem it beneath refutation had you not tagged me here. — StreetlightX
My snarkiness is simply a function of my disinterest in the OP, Schop. I'm not sure I can put "I don't care" in a delicate manner. — StreetlightX
But this already presupposes that philosophy ought to be undergridded by some sort of verificationist methodology which is nowhere spelled out, elaborated, or argued for in your OP - just assumed. — StreetlightX
Differences from the Original
In addition to the original study design, we added the following question: “Are you a vegetarian or a vegan?” We planned to perform a one-way ANOVA to see whether there is a difference in the total number of thoughts reported by vegetarians/vegans compared to non-vegetarians/non-vegans. — Reproducibility Project
From what i have read, there is also quite a bit of schlock being passed off as research in the social sciences. Almost any study that relies on surveys as a source of data is suspect, especially if it is retrospective. Suppose you want to study how much time students spend studying. "During the previous six months, how much time did you spend studying history?" Would that number be worth anything? Almost certainly not. Would it help if students logged their time? (phones can be used for this purpose)? Yes. It would be more valuable. If there was some way of checking on self reports it would be more valuable. Like, does geolocation information show that they are in the library when they say they are in the library? Are they studying history on line when they say they are on line, or are they playing games? The most useful data would come from observing students in some sort of unobtrusive controlled environment. That, however, costs money. — Bitter Crank
I bring this up because in a roundabout way, this problem of psychology's impotency to be used as "real" evidence will be hard for any realist account of concepts or meaning. A very fanciful and elaborate construct of how meaning is imputed through physical forces can be explained, but never verified via science due to there being no fitting psychological experiment that would definitely be agreed upon as truth to that elaborate theory. — schopenhauer1
It's perfectly plausible that we will continue to employ folk psychological notions in our practical lives, and even depend on them to make sense of our scientific ambitions, while simultaneously offering alternative theories of cognition, conation, etc, which are more amenable to law-like generalization. — Glahn
The problem I see here is that terms such as "cognition" and "conation" and the like are as much folk psychological notions (despite being more 'technical sounding' and not as apparently explanatorily efficacious) as "belief, "desire" and "impression", and I cannot see how the former could be any more "amenable to law-like generalization" than the latter. — John
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.