home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
- Path: sparky!uunet!news.univie.ac.at!scsing.switch.ch!news.unige.ch!divsun.unige.ch!swann
- From: swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN philip)
- Subject: Re: Cog Psych theories
- Message-ID: <1993Jan28.135928.28891@news.unige.ch>
- Sender: usenet@news.unige.ch
- Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
- References: <22JAN93.20070220.0093@VM1.MCGILL.CA> <1993Jan23.015123.12162@psych.toronto.edu> <1993Jan27.101200.14835@news.unige.ch> <1993Jan27.205744.21558@psych.toronto.edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:59:28 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <1993Jan27.205744.21558@psych.toronto.edu>, christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
-
- > >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.
- >
- [stuff deleted]
-
- > 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.
-
- It's only a problem for philosophers. Scientists judge theories according
- to their effectiveness in the real world and neither know nor care about
- their origins. Given the ineffectiveness of psychological theories in the
- real world, it is easy to see that they are not very good theories. No amount
- of formalization can save a bad idea.... Perhaps you can elaborate a bit
- more on the point you're trying to make about the philosophy of psychology.
-
- philip swann
-
-