@fresco,
Thank you very much for your answer! However, I found it troublesome to understand, or as it felt to me, decipher, the reply, as I have not yet come to the point in my philosophical studies where I am familiar with most of the philosophical terms. The fact that I am not a native English speaker further complicates the matter. Therefore, even though it might seem silly, I will break down your concise response into smaller, more childlike, comprehensible pieces, and you can decide whether you would like to spend further time on this topic or not.
Quote: There are often no satisfactory answers but this begs the question of the meaning of "satisfactory" which implies a degree of confidence in "outcomes".
If I got this right, you are saying that "there are no satisfactory answers" to my question, and then you go into an explanation of the word satisfactory, which you believe might not be a suitable word to describe what the answer to my questions will be like. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Secondly,
Quote: [psychology'] central (often ignored) problem involves an infinite regress of "the observation of observation" which resists "objective study"
Do you by this bring up the problem that one of psychology's main problem is that scientists draw conclusions about the mind based on the participant's descriptions of their mind, instead of directly accessing what happens inside the mind and actually seeing their cognitive processes?
If that is correct, then I do not understand why
Quote: its "findings" should be evaluated pragmatically, rather than epistemologically
. Is it because the psychological method will always be flawed, and that there only option therefore is to accept the current situation and just go along with its uncorrectable flaws?
Unfortunately, I could not find anything about Von Foerster and "a potential paradigm for behavioral interaction". Could you refer to any sources?
Quote: Note also that constructivists such as Piaget, pointed to the limits of "logic" as merely one aspect of " adult thought".
Do you by this mean that Piaget pointed out that logic is insufficient on its own, and requires empirical support? Google searches for Piaget only drowns me in a sea with information about his theory of cognitive development.
Regarding the third paragraph about "the philosophical point of view", I will have to do more research.
Quote: IMO the significant conclusion is that social dynamics and shifting context ultimately serve to evaluate issues, rather than static logic based on fixed premises. Thus a "satisfactory answer" is at best "what works" in a particular context, and has no "objective status" in the sense of traditional science.
Could you please elaborate this, or put it in simpler terms? I am spotting something about that the answers to my questions are not objective, but apart from that I must admit I'm a bit lost.
Thank you once again for you help,
Tolus