'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

[InfiniteNow]

To each his own, eh Turtle?

[ughaibu]

Coberst: I'm not sure which opinion you're questioning but I'll assume you're referring to my remark about Freud.

My opinion isn't based on authority, it's based on experience and (critical) thinking. Your mission is ostensibly to promote critical thinking, yet you appear to value conformity with your chosen authority more than you value the fruits of thinking.

In fact I made a rather deep study of theories in psychology during my teens, I later studied psychology formally at university level. The first thing that my university presented me with was Freud's derivation of the unconscious from erections observed during periods of paradoxical sleep, this is an unsupportable theory. It's a pity that those with an excessive respect for authority perpetuate the view that accepting this kind of nonsense constitutes knowledge.

[coberst]

Turtle

 

Perhaps I should give an account of what I mean by the word ‘authority’ as I have used that word in this post.

 

Authority, as I use it here, is not an official; authority is base upon knowledge and understanding. Authority is not the President or the policeman just because one is elected to an office and the other wears a uniform. My use of the word here is signifying someone who has earned respect and recognition by peers for their knowledge and understanding of a domain of knowledge.

 

If we do not rely upon authority as we try to learn who can we rely upon? Plato is an authority on matters of philosophy but may very well not be an authority on physics. Feynman is an authority on physics but may very well not be an authority on political philosophy.

 

I search out the best authority when I seek to learn and I cannot comprehend why anyone would find that to be foolish.

[coberst]

Coberst: I'm not sure which opinion you're questioning but I'll assume you're referring to my remark about Freud.

My opinion isn't based on authority, it's based on experience and (critical) thinking. Your mission is ostensibly to promote critical thinking, yet you appear to value conformity with your chosen authority more than you value the fruits of thinking.

In fact I made a rather deep study of theories in psychology during my teens, I later studied psychology formally at university level. The first thing that my university presented me with was Freud's derivation of the unconscious from erections observed during periods of paradoxical sleep, this is an unsupportable theory. It's a pity that those with an excessive respect for authority perpetuate the view that accepting this kind of nonsense constitutes knowledge.

 

Perhaps our dispute is based upon our use of the word 'authority'.

 

I do not agree that critical thinking will lead one to ignore knowledge as being important for making judgments. Books are an important means for knowing and understanding, one can gain little knowledge through social osmosis.

 

Your college experience is one example of how poorly some of our educational institutions perform their responsibility.

[Turtle]

Turtle

 

Perhaps I should give an account of what I mean by the word ‘authority’ as I have used that word in this post.

 

Authority, as I use it here, is not an official; authority is base upon knowledge and understanding. Authority is not the President or the policeman just because one is elected to an office and the other wears a uniform. My use of the word here is signifying someone who has earned respect and recognition by peers for their knowledge and understanding of a domain of knowledge.

 

If we do not rely upon authority as we try to learn who can we rely upon? Plato is an authority on matters of philosophy but may very well not be an authority on physics. Feynman is an authority on physics but may very well not be an authority on political philosophy.

 

I search out the best authority when I seek to learn and I cannot comprehend why anyone would find that to be foolish.

 

i don't find your effort or intent foolish; however, i often disagree with your selection of 'best authority'. i have a broader inclusion of 'authorities' than you give, that is not limited to people. the bible or quran are non-personal authority and the clipboard i earlier mentioned carries 'authority'. my point - and Milgram's scientifically derived conclusion - is that people do not subject their assignment of 'authority' to critical thinking.

 

here's the info again on Milgram; now this would be fine fodder for one of your essays that i would happily chew. >> Milgram's seminal work Obedience to Authority :evil: :doh:

[ughaibu]

Coberst: I apologise for my earlier unnecessarily harshly worded post (13).

[coberst]

ughaibu

 

Accepted. Negativity seems to be a fundamental aspect of Internet discussion forums.

 

I think that Internet discussion forums represent for many people a verbal video game. People seem to approach this medium as they would hand-to-hand combat. I suspect a good deal of this negativity is a result of anonymity.

[TheFaithfulStone]

No, it isn't a challenge to see if you know how to use a dictionary, it's a challenge to you to define "important" in the context that you use it in.

 

You say people don't learn important ideas once they get out of school. I say everything that I learned in school was unimportant. I did not for instance in school learn that setting type in sans serif fonts drops readability by about 50%. I learned that once I left school, and it was pretty freakin' important.

 

Anyway, Important is a liquid concept, and you have not solidified it in your claim.

 

Define "important" so that your statement is true. (Doable)

Define "important" so that we can all agree your statement is true. (Very hard.)

 

TFS

[coberst]

Faithful

 

The things that are important are those things that will help you learn why you do the things you do. By comprehending these important matters you can better mange your life.

[TZK]

This is a perfect example of why psychology is inferior to philosophy. Psychology is human knowledge which means that it is subject to the rules of the human ability to acquire knowledge.

 

Hold judgment until better informed is a reiteration of the philosophical concept of skepticism. The idea that humans do not have knowledge except the absence of that which contradicts what they already believe. Without studying philosophy, no person psychologist or not can pursue knowledge efficiently. So to skip philosophy and go straight to psychology results in stubbornly arguing with people you think are incorrect when they may not be and ignoring evidence that your ideas are wrong.

 

You have to know how to operate the mind before you can use it to figure out how the mind works.

[coberst]

TZK

 

I do not know how anyone could justify the conclusion that “psychology is inferior to philosophy”. Nor do I know how one could justify saying philosophy is inferior to psychology. Do you have some method that would allow you to make such a general statement? Could you develop a syllogism to justify your statement?

 

I am convinced, however, that learning CT (Critical Thinking) would help anyone make better judgments. Since logical thinking is a critical aspect of CT and it is a subject taught by the philosophy department one might say that this study is fundamental to good judgments in all domains of knowledge.