Philosophy of Psychology
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
'Introspectionism' and the Mythical Origins of Scientific Psychology
Consciousness and Cognition Consciousness and Cognition 15 (2006) 634–654 www.elsevier.com/locate/concog ‘Introspectionism’ and the mythical origins of scientific psychology Alan Costall Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO1 2DY, UK Received 1 May 2006 Abstract According to the majority of the textbooks, the history of modern, scientific psychology can be tidily encapsulated in the following three stages. Scientific psychology began with a commitment to the study of mind, but based on the method of introspection. Watson rejected introspectionism as both unreliable and effete, and redefined psychology, instead, as the science of behaviour. The cognitive revolution, in turn, replaced the mind as the subject of study, and rejected both behaviourism and a reliance on introspection. This paper argues that all three stages of this history are largely mythical. Introspectionism was never a dominant movement within modern psychology, and the method of introspection never went away. Furthermore, this version of psychology’s history obscures some deep conceptual problems, not least surrounding the modern conception of ‘‘behaviour,’’ that continues to make the scientific study of consciousness seem so weird. Ó 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Introspection; Introspectionism; Behaviourism; Dualism; Watson; Wundt 1. Introduction Probably the most immediate result of the acceptance of the behaviorist’s view will be the elimination of self-observation and of the introspective reports resulting from such a method. (Watson, 1913b, p. 428). The problem of consciousness occupies an analogous position for cognitive psychology as the prob- lem of language behavior does for behaviorism, namely, an unsolved anomaly within the domain of an approach. -
Philosophy of Psychology, Fall 2010
Philosophy of Psychology, Fall 2010 http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/f10/phil149/index.html Phil 149 Philosophy of Psychology Fall 2010, Tues. Thurs., 11:00am-12:20 pm Office Hours: Wednesday, 2:30-4:00, and by Professor: William Bechtel appointment Office: HSS 8076 Email: [email protected] Webpage: mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching Telephone: 822-4461 /f10/phil149/ 1. Course Description How do scientists explain mental activities such as thinking, imagining, and remembering? Are the explanations offered in psychology similar to or different from those found in the natural sciences? How do psychological explanations relate to those of other disciplines, especially those included in cognitive science? The course will focus on major research traditions in psychology, with a special focus on contemporary cognitive psychology. Research on memory will provide a focus for the latter portion of the course. Given the nature of the class, substantial material will be presented in lectures that goes beyond what is included in the readings. Also, philosophy is an activity, and learning activities requires active engagement. Accordingly, class attendance and discussion is critical. Although we will have discussions on other occasions as well, several classes are designated as discussion classes. 2. Course Requirements Class attendance is mandatory. Missing classes more than very occasionally will result in a reduction in your grade. To get the most out of the class, it is absolutely essential that every one comes to class prepared to discuss the readings. To ensure that this happens and to foster subsequent discussions in class, you will be required to turn in a very short (one paragraph) comments or questions on reading assigned during each week of the quarter, except when there is an exam. -
Philosophy of Mind
From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Philosophy of Mind Frank Jackson, Georges Rey Philosophical Concept ‘Philosophy of mind’, and ‘philosophy of psychology’ are two terms for the same general area of philosophical inquiry: the nature of mental phenomena and their connection with behaviour and, in more recent discussions, the brain. Much work in this area reflects a revolution in psychology that began mid-century. Before then, largely in reaction to traditional claims about the mind being non-physical (see Dualism; Descartes), many thought that a scientific psychology should avoid talk of ‘private’ mental states. Investigation of such states had seemed to be based on unreliable introspection (see Introspection, psychology of), not subject to independent checking (see Private language argument), and to invite dubious ideas of telepathy (see Parapsychology). Consequently, psychologists like B.F. Skinner and J.B. Watson, and philosophers like W.V. Quine and Gilbert Ryle argued that scientific psychology should confine itself to studying publicly observable relations between stimuli and responses (see Behaviourism, methodological and scientific; Behaviourism, analytic). However, in the late 1950s, several developments began to change all this: (i) The experiments behaviourists themselves ran on animals tended to refute behaviouristic hypotheses, suggesting that the behaviour of even rats had to be understood in terms of mental states (see Learning; Animal language and thought). (ii) The linguist Noam Chomsky drew attention to the surprising complexity of the natural languages that children effortlessly learn, and proposed ways of explaining this complexity in terms of largely unconscious mental phenomena. (iii) The revolutionary work of Alan Turing (see Turing machines) led to the development of the modern digital computer. -
Wittgenstein on Freedom of the Will: Not Determinism, Yet Not Indeterminism
Wittgenstein on Freedom of the Will: Not Determinism, Yet Not Indeterminism Thomas Nadelhoffer This is a prepublication draft. This version is being revised for resubmission to a journal. Abstract Since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Freedom of the Will, his remarks about free will and determinism have received very little attention. Insofar as these lectures give us an opportunity to see him at work on a traditional—and seemingly intractable—philosophical problem and given the voluminous secondary literature written about nearly every other facet of Wittgenstein’s life and philosophy, this neglect is both surprising and unfortunate. Perhaps these lectures have not attracted much attention because they are available to us only in the form of a single student’s notes (Yorick Smythies). Or perhaps it is because, as one Wittgenstein scholar put it, the lectures represent only “cursory reflections” that “are themselves uncompelling." (Glock 1996: 390) Either way, my goal is to show that Wittgenstein’s views about freedom of the will merit closer attention. All of these arguments might look as if I wanted to argue for the freedom of the will or against it. But I don't want to. --Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures on Freedom of the Will Since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Freedom of the Will,1 his remarks from these lectures about free will and determinism have received very little attention.2 Insofar as these lectures give us an opportunity to see him at work on a traditional—and seemingly intractable— philosophical problem and given the voluminous secondary literature written about nearly every 1 Wittgenstein’s “Lectures on Freedom of the Will” will be abbreviated as LFW 1993 in this paper (see bibliography) since I am using the version reprinted in Philosophical Occasions (1993). -
The Evolution of Human Mating: Trade-Offs and Strategic Pluralism
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2000) 23, 573–644 Printed in the United States of America The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism Steven W. Gangestad Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 [email protected] Jeffry A. Simpson Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 [email protected]. Abstract: During human evolutionary history, there were “trade-offs” between expending time and energy on child-rearing and mating, so both men and women evolved conditional mating strategies guided by cues signaling the circumstances. Many short-term matings might be successful for some men; others might try to find and keep a single mate, investing their effort in rearing her offspring. Recent evidence suggests that men with features signaling genetic benefits to offspring should be preferred by women as short-term mates, but there are trade-offs between a mate’s genetic fitness and his willingness to help in child-rearing. It is these circumstances and the cues that signal them that underlie the variation in short- and long-term mating strategies between and within the sexes. Keywords: conditional strategies; evolutionary psychology; fluctuating asymmetry; mating; reproductive strategies; sexual selection Research on interpersonal relationships, especially roman- attributes (e.g., physical attractiveness) tend to assume tic ones, has increased markedly in the last three decades greater importance in mating relationships than in other (see Berscheid & Reis 1998) across a variety of fields, in- types of relationships (Buss 1989; Gangestad & Buss 1993 cluding social psychology, anthropology, ethology, sociol- [see also Kenrick & Keefe: “Age Preferences in Mates Re- ogy, developmental psychology, and personology (Ber- flect Sex Differences in Human Reproductive Strategies” scheid 1994). -
Narcissism and the Strategic Pursuit of Short-Term Mating: Universal Links Across 11 World Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2
Psychological Topics, 26 (2017), 1, 89-137 Original Scientific Paper – UDC – 616.89-008.442.6 159.923.3.072 613.88 Narcissism and the Strategic Pursuit of Short-Term Mating: Universal Links across 11 World Regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2 David P. Schmitt - Bradley University, USA, Lidia Alcalay - Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, Jüri Allik - University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia, I.C.B. Alves - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, Craig A. Anderson - Iowa State University, USA, A.L. Angelini - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, Jens B. Asendorpf - Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Ivars Austers - University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, Isabel Balaguer - University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, Américo Baptista - University of Lusofona-Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, Sóley S. Bender - University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland, Kevin Bennett - Penn State University-Beaver, USA, Gabriel Bianchi - Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, Behrooz Birashk - Faculty of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health, Tehran Psychiatric Institute, Tehran, Iran, April Bleske-Rechek - University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, USA, Fredrick A. Boholst - University of San Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines, Lynda Boothroyd - University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland, Teresa Borja - Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, Arjan Bos - Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands, Edwin Brainerd - Clemson University, USA, David P. Schmitt, Department of Psychology, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 62625, USA until August of 2017. Afterward send correspondence to David P. Schmitt, Psychology Division, Department of Life Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3PH, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected] Data collection representing Costa Rica was from the University of Costa Rica and was supported by the University of Costa Rica Psychological Research Institute. -
There Is a Very Substantial Literature Now on Wittgenstein-And-Pragmatism
Practicing Pragmatist-Wittgensteinianism Introduction Much has been written on the continuities between Wittgenstein’s later work and Pragmatism. Much of that writing has argued for there being strong continuity. Of those who see such strong continuity there are those who hold Wittgenstein to be the pre-eminent—even perhaps the superior—philosopher of the Wittgenstein-Pragmatism nexus (e.g. Hilary Putnam), and others who see Wittgenstein as simply echoing some of what was said with more originality by C.S. Peirce, with the consequent diminution in clarity that echoes bring (e.g. W.V.O. Quine). What Quine and Putnam have in common, however, is the identification of note-worthy continuity, and in this they are far from alone (see James C. Edwards Ethics Without Philosophy, Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, and many others). We don’t necessarily wish to dispute these. However, in a similar manner perhaps to with Wittgenstein’s relationship to Freud, there are certain often downplayed aspects of the Wittgenstein-Pragmatism nexus that considerably complicate the picture of continuity as it is so often presented. Indeed, one question to ask is whether the picture can survive—will its hold over us remain—once we’ve been furnished with certain reminders; that is to say, once we’ve been taught certain differences between Wittgenstein’s philosophy and Pragmatism. 1 Back for a moment to Freud. It is now fairly widely accepted that Wittgenstein’s philosophy is best understood as therapeutic and in being so is indebted to Freud and the therapeutic method he devised. -
Cognitive Psychology
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1997,4 (3), 342-349 T. V. Moore's (1939) Cognitive Psychology AIMEEM. SURPRENANT and IANNEATH Purdue University, WestLafayette, Indiana Thomas Verner Moore published a book called Cognitive Psychology in 1939,almost 30 years be fore Neisser's (1967) more familiar and far more influential work. Although it covers most of the stan dard topics found in current cognitive psychology textbooks, and even anticipated several current trends, Moore's text is not cited by any ofthe major histories of the "cognitive revolution" or any cur rent cognitive textbook. Weprovide a briefsketch of Moore's academic life and summarize several of his papers that are still cited. After describing the psychologies prevalent in 1939,we compare Moore's text with two contemporary works, Woodworth (1938) and McGeoch (1942). We conclude by com paring the older textwith Neisser's and by offering several reasons why the book is virtually unknown. Cognitive psychology differs from other areas of sci ner, 1985; Lachman, Lachman, & Butterfield, 1979) or entific psychology in that it loudly and proudly proclaims any ofthe current undergraduate cognitive textbooks cite to have arisen out ofa (largely bloodless) revolution. The the work. Neisser himselfwas unaware ofthe earlier vol very phrase "cognitive revolution" implies a fundamen ume until a few years after his version was published; in tal change in theories and research into human thought deed, his title might have been different ifhe had known and behavior and a complete overthrow of the previous about the earlier work (Neisser, personal communica way of thinking. As with most revolutions, the circum tion, June 1996). -
Aristotle's Psychology
victor caston aristotle’s psychology Aristotle’s starting point, and not questions about skepticism and certainty, explains why he is not preoccupied with many of the issues that preoccupy Descartes. 17 The soul, then, is that by which we perceive, feel, think and act,1 since these are all activities peculiar to living things. To this extent, Aristotle’s use of “soul” is quite Aristotle’s Psychology similar to our use of “mind.” We commonly say that we perform these activities “with our minds,” without implying anything Cartesian about dualism or privacy. But the two are not precise equivalents. As the basis of life, the soul for Aristotle is also that in VICTOR CASTON virtue of which we grow, digest, reproduce, and breathe.2 In fact, he criticizes his predecessors for not having paid attention to this, and pointedly insists that plants also have a soul, even though he regards them as incapable of perception, thought, feeling, or action.3 In so far as it studies vital capacities as well as mental ones, psychology has Aristotle’s psychology – what he calls the “study of the soul” (hE tEs psuchEs historia) a broader scope for Aristotle than philosophy of mind does for us. But apart from this – occupies a prominent place both in his own philosophy and in the Western philo- difference in extension, they will have much in common. Many of the issues that arise sophical tradition as a whole. In his own system, psychology is the culmination of in connection with the mind – for example, mechanism, reduction, and emergence metaphysics and natural science. -
Chapter Seven Functionalism: Development and Founding
Chapter Seven Functionalism: Development and Founding PSY 495 History and Systems Dr. Rick Grieve Western Kentucky University Evolution Comes to America z Background – 1900: American psychology had taken on a life of its own z Functions of the mind z Individualism, inventiveness, and ingenuity z Herbert Spencer (1820(1820--1903)1903) – Kooky, but became a hero in America – Social Darwinism z Evolution and natural selection apply to the social realm Evolution Comes to America z Spencer argued that the development of all aspects of the universe follows evolutionary principles – Including human character and social institution z “survival of the fittest” – Those who are best adapted will be those most likely to survive and pass traits on to future generations – Only the best will survive – Leave people and organizations alone to develop themselves and society in their own ways • Those which cannot adapt are unfit for survival and should be allowed to perish • This way, society could eventually achieve perfection 1 Evolution Comes to America – Synthetic Philosophy z Knowledge and experience can be explained in terms of evolutionary principles z Principles of Psychology (1855) – Mind exists in its present form because of past and continuing efforts to adapt to various environments The Continuing Evolution of Machines z Henry Hollerith and the Punched Cards – Hollerith was an engineer who developed punched cards z Improve d the a bilitbility o f mac hines to process da ta – Radically altered info processing – Renewed hopes (and fears) that -
Katharina T. Kraus CURRICULUM VITAE
Katharina T. Kraus CURRICULUM VITAE PERSONAL INFORMATION Department of Philosophy Email: [email protected] University of Notre Dame Office: 309 Malloy Hall 100 Malloy Hall Phone: +1 (574) 631 - 7327 Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA RESEARCH AREAS Areas of Specialisation Kant, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Psychology Areas of Competence Modern Philosophy (esp. 17th and 18th Century), Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, Moral Psychology ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 2017 – present Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame (USA) Steering Committee and Fellow of the History of Philosophy Forum Faculty Fellow of the Nanovic Institute for European Studies Faculty Member of the Ph.D. Program in History and Philosophy of Science 2014 – 2016 Assistant Professor, Epistemology and Theory of Science, University College Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs University of Freiburg (Germany) 2013 – 2014 Postdoctoral Fellow of the Martin Buber Society of Fellows in the Humanities, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY 2013 Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK) Thesis Title: “Psychological knowledge in Kant’s Critical thinking” 2010 MPhil History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge (UK) Thesis Title: “Kant’s Theory of Agency” 2009 Philosophy (Bachelor equivalent: “Grundstudium” of Magister Artium) Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg (Germany) PHYSICS 2008 Diplom Physics (Bachelor & Master equivalent; Minors: Mathematics, Philosophy) Ruprecht-Karls University Heidelberg (Germany) PUBLICATIONS MONOGRAPHS 1. Kant on Self-Knowledge and Self-Formation: The Nature of Inner Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. EDITED VOLUMES 2 Katharina T. Kraus – CV 2. Kant’s Philosophy of Science. Bridging the Gap between the Natural and the Human Sciences. -
The Contemporary Relevance of Kant's Transcendental Psychology
The Contemporary Relevance of Kant’s Transcendental Psychology Deborah Maxwell Alamé-Jones BA (Hons) Supervisor: Dr David Morgans Submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy UNIVERSITY OF WALES TRINITY SAINT DAVID 2018 DECLARATION SHEET This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed .......Deborah Alame-Jones........................................................... Date .............. 17th May 2018.......................................................... STATEMENT 1 This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Sources are acknowledged by giving explicit references in the body of the text. A bibliography is appended. Signed ........ Deborah Alame-Jones............................................................. Date .............. 17th May 2018.......................................................... STATEMENT 2 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed .......... Deborah Alame-Jones........................................................... Date .............. 17th May 2018.......................................................... STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for deposit in the University’s digital repository. Signed ........... Deborah Alame-Jones.........................................................