From: "Phil Roberts, Jr."Date: Tue Feb 19, 2002 0:05pm Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Evolutionary psychology, dualism and ethics Michael Lamport Commons wrote: > > What we need instead of a science that posits people are rational or > irrational, or have will or do not, etc. is that people can be sensible, > reasonable, and prudent to varying degrees. All the above terms can be > grounded in behavior. > Perhaps, but why encumber ourselves with a philosophy of science that's 50 years out of date? "Discussions of scientific method have tended to stress problems of testability, while neglecting...those aspects of the universe which in some sense are most central and significant for the area of reality with which the science deals." "It has been frequently assumed that only those events which in principle can be simultaneously observed by multiple observers ... are to be accepted as constituting a legitimate observational basis for science." "I am suggesting that the more general and, to me, acceptable, objective intended by the criterion of interobserver agreement would be...the criterion of repeatability....a more general trust in one's own experience" ...and the abandonment of "a corresponding uncritical acceptance of the significance of verbal reports." (Karl Zener) [Psychology is unique] insofar as its institutionalization preceded its content and its methods preceded its problem's.... [Psychology] still bases its understanding of vital questions of method on an extrinsic philosophy of science which (in some areas) is [fifty] years or more out of date" (A History of A Science, p. 788). "In the new heuristic, scientific knowledge is much closer to that knowledge which is more familiarly accessible, through common sense, literature, and other modes of experience." (Manicas and Secord) Implications of the New Philosophy of Science: A Topology for Psychology, http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476/N_T_abs.htm Phil Roberts, Jr.