5
   

Can we compare physics and psychology?

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 01:10 am
@empiricism,
In what way is quantum mechanics incomplete?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 01:22 am
@Brandon9000,

(Shh...don't mention Godel's Incompleteness theorem Wink )
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 04:26 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:


(Shh...don't mention Godel's Incompleteness theorem Wink )

I won't, since it applies to all mathematical systems equally and has no particular relevance to quantum mechanics beyond it's relevance to mathematics in general.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 05:48 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
has no particular relevance to quantum mechanics beyond it's relevance to mathematics in general


The complex issue here is the relationship between the two. The concept of "anti-particles" for example arose from the alternative solutions to polynomial equations (as in positive and answers to quadratics). Coincidentally Godel's earlier (non-logic) work on Einsteins equations produced a solution involving a rotating universe in which "time travel" was possible.

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978529

This is an excellent discussion of that issue.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 05:55 pm
@Brandon9000,
TYPO

.....(as in positive and negative answers to quadratics).....
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 06:18 pm
@fresco,
I doubt whether empiricism (the poster) appreciates the irony of the fact that mathematics, a psychological product, is being used here to underpin physical theory. This is the antithesis of his reductionist position.
0 Replies
 
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Dec, 2009 07:34 pm
The fact remains that I can measure, test, and predict human behavior in a lab just as a physicist can measure, test, and predict the behavior of billiard balls, or cosmological objects, or whatever. You can keep clinging to your quantum security blanket. Get back to me when you have the unified field theory.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 02:41 am
@empiricism,
You don't understand the words "just as". You are the one with the security blanket.

Speaking as a published experimental psychologist I can state the following :

Behavioral psychologists mimic being physicists in order to don a cloak of "scientific respectability". But the problem of "the observation of observation" which is central to all considerations of "a stimulus", has major practical and philosophical implications, and has given rise to such fields as "second order cybernetics" (Von Foerster) which rejects your reductionism.

Furthermore, so called "testing" merely involves the rejection of a null hypothesis at some arbitrary "significance" level, and quite often particular tests are chosen or assumptions made, to produce such "significance". Rejection of a null hypothesis is quite different to supporting a theoretical framework which directs data collection. Psychologists also have the problem of extrapolating from the artificiality of the laboratory to "real life" since their very act of opening an experimental "window on events" can have the same effect as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in affecting "the data".




0 Replies
 
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Dec, 2009 07:52 pm
Behavioral psychologists do have a theoretical framework which encompasses all human behavior. It is the cognitivists, the mentalists, and the philosophers who stand in the way of scientific advancement. Behavioral psychology happens not only in the lab but in the real world (more often than not).

You are philosophically offended by behaviorism. It is insulting to you that you aren't special. You have no free will. No action you have ever taken has come from a magical thing called "free will" or "consciousness". They are the products of variables in the environment, and your history of previous reinforcement.

You are made of the same stuff everything else is made of. You are not an electron. Quantum physics do not apply to anything you do.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 12:47 am
@empiricism,
empiricism wrote:

The fact remains that I can measure, test, and predict human behavior in a lab just as a physicist can measure, test, and predict the behavior of billiard balls, or cosmological objects, or whatever. You can keep clinging to your quantum security blanket. Get back to me when you have the unified field theory.

Referring to a "quantum security blanket" is not a specific assertion. What are you alleging here?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 01:57 am
@empiricism,
Quote:
Behavioral psychologists do have a theoretical framework which encompasses all human behavior


Total nonsense ! Are you really ignorant of the demise of behaviorism in 1957 when Chomsky demolished Skinner with respect to the acquisition of language - that "most human" of behaviors ? Shocked

Code:You are philosophically offended by behaviorism. It is insulting to you that you aren't special.


No ! I am offended by didactic responses from people who havn't read anything.
Yours would certainly would have failed you any any psychology course I have ever attended.

Wake up ! The issue is not whether "humans" are special, but what is involved in "doing science" a behavior which seems to be confined to humans.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:25 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon,

He/she is obviously clueless about physics (and psychology for that matter !). For "security blanket" for others, read "insecurity blanket" ignored by simplistic behaviorists.
0 Replies
 
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 04:27 am
Behaviorism is hardly dead. Chomsky's paper is widely cited by those who wish to not think of themselves. But Chomsky's criticisms were opinion in nature. He didn't disprove Skinner's Verbal Behavior he just disagreed with it.

Kenneth MacCorquodale rebutted Chomsky's review 40 years ago. You can find it easily on Google, but you aren't going to bother.

When a small child refuses to eat and vomits her food, her physician calls in a behaviorist. When a boy is diagnosed with autism his parents don't call a philosopher. They don't call up Noam Chomsky for help. They call in a behaviorist.

I am more familiar with psychology than you will ever be whether it be cognitive theory, or behaviorist theory, or even the absurd psychoanalytic theories. If you want to turn this into a pissing contest I am happy to oblige.
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 04:50 am
@Brandon9000,
The "quantum security blanket" is just a statement about quantum mysticism. Secularists lately are clinging to quantum mechanics like theists cling to religion.

Such as making arguments that free will exists because subatomic particles do strange things. Or asserting that we are all immortal due to many-worlds interpretation. Go ahead and test it.

The majority of these quantum theories are unfalsifiable. Therefore not science, but mysticism instead.

Physics will become more and more refined with time. And I am sure that even the behavior of subatomic particles will fall under the laws of the natural universe. I am hardly alone here. My friend Al once said, "God does not play dice with the universe."
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 05:04 am
The topic of this thread was whether one can compare physics and psychology. My contention is 'yes'. Physics and psychology are both natural sciences. Physics is the study of matter, and psychology is the study of animal behavior.

My two friends seem to have no opinion other than quantum mechanics is totally awesome and that I am a nitwit. What exactly are you arguing for besides that I am wrong?

Psychologists should not be concerned with the anatomy of the mind. That is for biologists. I do not care very much about neurons, or electrochemicals. What I care about is the study of behavior. The shaping, changing, and extinction of behavior in humans and all animals.

It doesn't matter if the behavior is coming from neurons and action potential, or your kind of mind which apparently is an electron in a vacuum (you poor thing).

The results of thousands and thousands of psychological studies is clear and indisputable. Human behavior is measurable and predictable just like anything else you find in nature.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 07:19 am
@empiricism,
Laughing

"Wrong" would be an understatement. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

Try the "Rants n' Raves" Forum. ! Subscribers check in their brains at the door.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 10:13 am
@empiricism,
empiricism wrote:

The "quantum security blanket" is just a statement about quantum mysticism. Secularists lately are clinging to quantum mechanics like theists cling to religion.

Such as making arguments that free will exists because subatomic particles do strange things. Or asserting that we are all immortal due to many-worlds interpretation. Go ahead and test it.

The majority of these quantum theories are unfalsifiable. Therefore not science, but mysticism instead....

That is true, but actual quantum mechanics, as physicists and engineers use it, has been verified countless times.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 01:20 pm
@empiricism,
Quote:
Kenneth MacCorquodale rebutted Chomsky's review 40 years ago. You can find it easily on Google, but you aren't going to bother.


Found it...and its rebuttal by Chomsky !

Quote:
I am more familiar with psychology than you will ever be


No...you merely have a vested interest in maintaining its pretensions.


0 Replies
 
empiricism
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 02:36 pm
You have no arguments other than "you are wrong". Your posts have no content at all besides ad hominem attacks. Therefore I win. It's been fun.

ps: Chomsky and MacCorquodale could rebut each other for eternity (if MacCorquodale was still alive) because Chomsky's issues with behaviorism is not issues with behaviorism's content but with it's methods and it's philosophical consequences.

Chomsky shows an absolutely pathetic understanding of behaviorism whenever he talks about it. Even basic principles of behaviorism are beyond his grasp. He should confine himself to discussing the things he knows, like useless armchair philosophy.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 02:21 am
@empiricism,
Quote:
You have no arguments other than "you are wrong". Your posts have no content at all besides ad hominem attacks. Therefore I win. It's been fun.


Congratulations !

You must now deterministically enjoy your pre-ordained success ! Wink
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 10:53:04