writing a lab on Shephard's 1961 experiments at the moment. This lecture helped give me some good foundational knowledge for the principles and processes at play! Cheers
19:30 👆🏼 can someone please explain this part of the video? What is there to notice? I’m clawing my eyes out of their sockets but can’t see anything. 👁👄👁
If you actually end up studying categorisation, you will find that similarities only paint part of the picture, and that the differences between concepts are often what really allows meaningful categorisation. I'm not close-minded, I simply tend to appreciate the informative type of speculation a lot more than the futile variety.
difference does not exist in the object. difference is something that the subject sees in the object (which in this case is a relation). Difference is a concept. a word. a structure that we project onto reality. There is no essence in reality. Every tree is different to every other tree, yet we use a taxonomy that puts things called "trees" into their places in this particular taxonomy. I could make out infinite differences between two oaks and infinite similarities. the choice of which criteria for different placements of objects in this taxonomy matter and which don't is arbitrary in the end. There are also similarities between myths and enlightenment. In communication it is all discourse, all language. What establishes conceptual unity? why is a thing one thing? No matter what the answer in a particular case is - it could always have been something else.
Humble brag: I saw the change in that picture immediately. Of note, I'm Autistic. We tend to be less susceptible to Change Blindness. Also, seeing this on my Chromebook rather than a lecture hall might affect this. EDIT: Second one took about five secs. Probably because it wasn't in the foreground. It was not part of the "scene". In the third one, does the colour change? Hm. Hard to tell with the video quality, but I'll hand that one to him if so. I mean, it does, but I don't know if that was what he wanted to demonstrate.
Since I've already addressed this point, I'm just going to copy and paste what I've already said: Science is more than capable of asking the questions it will then try to answer. It's called hypothesis formulation and hypothesis testing. More importantly, science can ask much more poignant questions than any religion or belief system ever did.
Even in models of situated cognition, as subject as they are to contextual modulation, empirical data will always offer an infinitely more solid foundation for hypothesis making and testing than any religious drivel. So, no.
as the definition of science and religion stands right now, youre right, they are completely separate. but you can't ignore one while trying to study the development of the other. you can't ignore half the phenomena youre observing..
The only connection is that they are both expressions of complex human behaviour. That is all. You are, however, free to spend your time as you see fit.
I didn't say hypothesis formulation didn't involve assumptions. I said they weren't "faith-based" but grounded in observation. The distinction might be trivial to you, but to anyone who understands how science works, it makes all the difference in the world. And sure, religion is manipulation. That's the essence of what is wrong with it. And it's not experimental manipulation. It's plain, ol' brainwashing. Nothing reasonable about it.
"grounded in observation" means "faith-based". It means that you trust your senses. your observations. it means that you believe that whatever you see through these colored spectacles is somehow related to reality and that you are smart enough to figure out the relations between appearance and reality. Should I tell you a story about the empiricists and the rationalists? It is a very short story, because they were both kind of wrong - or at least we think so. just look at the history of science man...
science is the answer to the questions that religion and philosophy raises. its like 2 sides of an infinitely complex algebraic equation. there is a famous quote by albert einstein "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind", hes saying one can't exist without the other. once you eliminate one from your spectrum, you dont only change your answer, your question looks completely different. if you keep moving the starting line, are you still running the same race?
Scientific illiteracy is a tragedy, but it doesn't make science any less reliable. And while there's no doubt that teleology has its foundations in cognition, just like any other philosophy - like any aspect of human behaviour, really - that doesn't mean that metaphysical nonsense and the scientific method share anything. You can repeat it until you go blue in the face, that fact won't change. They *are* methodologically completely separate.
without doing these scientific experiments ones self, or without completely understanding and proof checking the mathematics behind physics and its predictions, the whole idea of 'faith' plays a huge role. if science is the tool used to discover the universe, its already less 'complete' than a religion that claims to already know. i guess i can rewrite my question, aren't religion and science the same on the surface? or are they more like opposing poles on the same magnet?
they obviously aren't the same thing. my argument is on the similarities. if youre a post grad whos this close minded about a fresher minds questions and quandaries it probably means you missed something along the way...
I'm not suggesting anything, I am merely stating a fact. Science and religion have FUCK ALL in common. Different premises, different methodologies, different conclusions and vastly different predictive power and reliability. You can try and tell yourself otherwise all you like, but that will never, ever, ever, EVER change. I seriously don't know how to put this in a simpler way.
"do unto others..." etc. doesn't need need to be 'peer reviewed', it's simply reasonable. its the same 'reason' that is the foundation of our understanding of quantum mechanics and cosmology/astrophysics. cognitive science is purely 'reason' based in the sense that 'brain science' is actually 'brain predictions'. of course they are all connected, they came from the same place.
when you reason the formulation of the hypothesis you are using faith-based assumptions. if there is something wrong with the assumption in science, the hypothesis fails. if there is something wrong with the assumption in religion people fight each other or themselves. where as science is the measurement and manipulation of the world outside oneself, religion is the measurement manipulation of everything within ones character.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? No, science has no assumption that there is "reason for existence." That's teleological thinking and has absolutely NO place in science. It is, however, central to religions. This is really philosophy of science 101, and if you get this wrong, then you have no place in science at all. For the last time, science and religion share absolutely nothing methodologically and, historically, only the fact that they are both expressions of human behaviour.
Well, it is not just you. If you are talking to a positivist, he will disagree and say that science and religion don't do the same thing. If you talk to a non-essentialist, he will mostly agree. Of course everything that involves thought also involves categorisation as a sort of a "making sense". in epistemology we ask whether the concepts that we use have can have some sort of validity or not. Of course every philosopher has a different opinion on this. A very famous book on this question is Kant's critique of pure reason; he makes some distinctions between "science" and "relegion" or metaphysics, but also shows certain similarities. Of course, something that is quite a bit old now. During the last century, there was one major revolution going on in academia (esp. in linguistics, biology, anthropology, literary studies, philosophy and psychology): Structuralism. Structuralism goes back to the french linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. He emphasized on how language is arbitrary in nature, on how "valeur" comes only into being through relations inside a system and developed the concepts of the -etic and -emic structures. Another question is: what establishes (conceptual) unity? (Post-)structuralists see that every criteria (e.g. for unity) is just an arbitrary choice. (This is also something that we can observe quite well in cognitive linguistics.) I also want to mention Michael Foucault, who wrote a lot about what gets recognized as "science" and what not. These evaluations are depending on what he calls "discourse" and also arbitrary in nature. Just look back to the middle ages: Theology was the only science, every "other" discipline was just seen as a special part or instrument of/for theology. We nowadays often think that people back than were dumb to call (their) theology a science. The truth is that they had different requirements for "science" than us, they were as good enough to fulfill their standards just as we are to fulfill ours. Every "period"(language is ALWAYS conceptualization) brings its own shift of paradigms with it. I have read most of your discussion with +FabioP here. Don't listen to him. The Vienna Circle and the behaviorists have left a deep mark on psychology. I don't want to say that the scholars from the middle ages were better than the positivsts. I want to point out that nobody knows the noumenal world and somehow we are all doing metaphysics. Whoever claims to be wiser lies. Everything we claim to be "knowlegde" is an arbitrary projection of arbitrarily created and arbitrarily chosen structures (=concepts) onto reality. I also like that you rather speak of "context" than of "reality". maybe I should add this to my vocabulary.
how could I forget the following? there is a book concerned especially with your question: the dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkheimer and Adorno. btw: it is not just a great book about the philosophy of science but also a great book about or on humanity and inhumanity, written during WWII. They focus very much on how "science" evolved out of "religion". (I state a necessary falsehood for explanatory reasons, but you have to read the book to correct me.)
That's really no better. Like it or not, humanity didn't survive thanks to religion. For the most part, humanity survived in spite of religion. Ignoring this very simple fact means ignoring history. Live with it.
im trying to say for the scientifically illiterate science is purely faith. im also trying to say that science religion and psychology are all linked at the source of cognition (the mind) and there is no way to completely separate one from another.
For the last time, science did not develop from ANY kind of religious paradigm. If anything, science was a reaction to the prevalent religious paradigm of the time. As I have already written: "The fact that a few early adopters of the scientific method happened to be religious figures is of no consequence. If anything, whenever science was done properly, some religious authority got seriously butthurt. You clearly need to brush up on your history as well as on your science."
First of all, this is a video about cognitive science. That aside, I've never seen a peer-reviewed religious publication. Faith and scientific investigation are entirely, utterly antithetical. I cannot stress enough how they have absolutely nothing in common. On the surface or at any depth. The fact that religions make claims to universal knowledge is completely irrelevant.
Trying to establish that faith and empirical research are fundamentally the same thing is really a terrible, terrible way to try and start a career in cognitive science. Or in any area of science, for that matter. And this coming from a cognitive science post-graduate student. If serious academia and research is not what you're aiming for, however, go right ahead.
both religion and science have the predisposed, faith-based assumptions that there is reason for existence, and that there is order to the universe. both fail to describe huge huge aspects of reality as a whole. until science can literally create a separate reality, it and religion will always be attached somewhere
hmm well you and i have two different ideas of what religion is. and i dont disagree with your definition of what a hypothesis is, but you apparently dont know how to hypothesize..
religion is observation of phenomena, you arent saying anything. some might say you are your own religion if you can't be receptive to others views. others might call you a bigot. but im not for the labels. im sorry if your opinions of religion arent as adaptive as your opinions of science.
I know you think you're being extremely deep, but I assure you that's not the case. Science is more than capable of asking the questions it will then try to answer. It's called hypothesis formulation and hypothesis testing. More importantly, science can ask much more poignant questions than any religion or belief system ever did. What Einstein had to say on the subject is irrelevant. He was a brilliant physicist, not a philosopher.
You keep assuming that religion can somehow account for some mysterious half of reality, but never bother to back this silly claim with anything more than your own words. As it happens, scientists are perfectly capable of successfully carrying out scientific research without having to contemplate ridiculous metaphysical and mythological notions. That's why science works as a method to explain reality. That's why science replaced religion as that method rather than stemming from it.
I don't much care for disagreeing with people, but I have no qualms about correcting them if they're talking nonsense. And the mantra that science is the offspring of religion is exactly that, nonsense. The fact that a few early adopters of the scientific method happened to be religious figures is of no consequence. If anything, whenever science was done properly, some religious authority got seriously butthurt. You clearly need to brush up on your history as well as on your science.
Ok, now you're just talking nonsense. Science studies reality in a systematic way and makes predictions about it. Commandments and religious rules are normative tenets (some more abominable than others). Entirely different purposes, absolutely nothing in common. I'm not sure you even have any idea of what you're actually trying to say.
i think you just have a predisposed hatred toward the word religion, you need to realize there is a reason they exist, and science (along with humanity as we know it) was a product of it
Wrong. Hypothesis formulation relies on the observation of underlying phenomena. There is nothing faith-based about it. And religion and measurement shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. Measurements are only possible of quantifiable phenomena. That is, of real phenomena. Once more, I invite you to read up on the scientific method, because you don't seem to know much about it.
lol.. the graduate student with degree in conceptualization (? I guess) talking about definitions. Are you not familiar with valeur in semantics? "look it up in a dictionary" is the best thing that has happened to youtube in 2016.
Religion was nothing but a sadly necessary detour while we found actual explanations for natural phenomena. Elevating it to anything more than that is simply idiotic. And for the last time, hypothesis-making follows observation of phenomena and it's nothing like "this must be it!" You have clearly never done science and hopefully never will.
writing a lab on Shephard's 1961 experiments at the moment. This lecture helped give me some good foundational knowledge for the principles and processes at play! Cheers
Thanks for the video
19:30
👆🏼 can someone please explain this part of the video? What is there to notice? I’m clawing my eyes out of their sockets but can’t see anything. 👁👄👁
It is off the screen. Bad zooming.
@@user-qj7wb7fr9k Really now? I thought it was the colour of the picture. Huh. Shame I couldn't see it.
If you actually end up studying categorisation, you will find that similarities only paint part of the picture, and that the differences between concepts are often what really allows meaningful categorisation. I'm not close-minded, I simply tend to appreciate the informative type of speculation a lot more than the futile variety.
difference does not exist in the object. difference is something that the subject sees in the object (which in this case is a relation).
Difference is a concept. a word. a structure that we project onto reality.
There is no essence in reality.
Every tree is different to every other tree, yet we use a taxonomy that puts things called "trees" into their places in this particular taxonomy. I could make out infinite differences between two oaks and infinite similarities. the choice of which criteria for different placements of objects in this taxonomy matter and which don't is arbitrary in the end.
There are also similarities between myths and enlightenment. In communication it is all discourse, all language.
What establishes conceptual unity? why is a thing one thing? No matter what the answer in a particular case is - it could always have been something else.
1:41 Guess what - that wasn’t it’s trunk.
I saw the change after the first flash in pictures 1 and 2, but I cannot see any change in picture three for the life of me.
Same here
Good stuff
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" :D
Faaaaaacts! Chew the fish and spit out the bones is how I’d translate what your screaming. I feel you. 7:18
It there a video with "Social Psychology" lecture?
SFU videos rule!
Humble brag: I saw the change in that picture immediately. Of note, I'm Autistic. We tend to be less susceptible to Change Blindness. Also, seeing this on my Chromebook rather than a lecture hall might affect this.
EDIT: Second one took about five secs. Probably because it wasn't in the foreground. It was not part of the "scene".
In the third one, does the colour change? Hm. Hard to tell with the video quality, but I'll hand that one to him if so. I mean, it does, but I don't know if that was what he wanted to demonstrate.
how can someone provide an answer if there are no questions?
*too
Since I've already addressed this point, I'm just going to copy and paste what I've already said: Science is more than capable of asking the questions it will then try to answer. It's called hypothesis formulation and hypothesis testing. More importantly, science can ask much more poignant questions than any religion or belief system ever did.
well i believe there is a psychological connection between science and religion and i will continue defining it.
Even in models of situated cognition, as subject as they are to contextual modulation, empirical data will always offer an infinitely more solid foundation for hypothesis making and testing than any religious drivel. So, no.
im not talking about 300 years ago specifically. im talking about the development as a whole.
so you suggest to simply ignore half of what makes it different? i dont think you disagree with me as much as you think you do..
as the definition of science and religion stands right now, youre right, they are completely separate. but you can't ignore one while trying to study the development of the other. you can't ignore half the phenomena youre observing..
The only connection is that they are both expressions of complex human behaviour. That is all. You are, however, free to spend your time as you see fit.
I didn't say hypothesis formulation didn't involve assumptions. I said they weren't "faith-based" but grounded in observation. The distinction might be trivial to you, but to anyone who understands how science works, it makes all the difference in the world.
And sure, religion is manipulation. That's the essence of what is wrong with it. And it's not experimental manipulation. It's plain, ol' brainwashing. Nothing reasonable about it.
"grounded in observation" means "faith-based". It means that you trust your senses. your observations. it means that you believe that whatever you see through these colored spectacles is somehow related to reality and that you are smart enough to figure out the relations between appearance and reality.
Should I tell you a story about the empiricists and the rationalists? It is a very short story, because they were both kind of wrong - or at least we think so.
just look at the history of science man...
complex as it is, seeing as how i intend to make a living through my interpretation of psychology it seems like a reasonable place to start.
science is the answer to the questions that religion and philosophy raises. its like 2 sides of an infinitely complex algebraic equation. there is a famous quote by albert einstein "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind", hes saying one can't exist without the other. once you eliminate one from your spectrum, you dont only change your answer, your question looks completely different. if you keep moving the starting line, are you still running the same race?
Scientific illiteracy is a tragedy, but it doesn't make science any less reliable. And while there's no doubt that teleology has its foundations in cognition, just like any other philosophy - like any aspect of human behaviour, really - that doesn't mean that metaphysical nonsense and the scientific method share anything. You can repeat it until you go blue in the face, that fact won't change. They *are* methodologically completely separate.
without doing these scientific experiments ones self, or without completely understanding and proof checking the mathematics behind physics and its predictions, the whole idea of 'faith' plays a huge role. if science is the tool used to discover the universe, its already less 'complete' than a religion that claims to already know. i guess i can rewrite my question, aren't religion and science the same on the surface? or are they more like opposing poles on the same magnet?
they obviously aren't the same thing. my argument is on the similarities. if youre a post grad whos this close minded about a fresher minds questions and quandaries it probably means you missed something along the way...
I'm not suggesting anything, I am merely stating a fact. Science and religion have FUCK ALL in common. Different premises, different methodologies, different conclusions and vastly different predictive power and reliability. You can try and tell yourself otherwise all you like, but that will never, ever, ever, EVER change. I seriously don't know how to put this in a simpler way.
"do unto others..." etc. doesn't need need to be 'peer reviewed', it's simply reasonable. its the same 'reason' that is the foundation of our understanding of quantum mechanics and cosmology/astrophysics. cognitive science is purely 'reason' based in the sense that 'brain science' is actually 'brain predictions'. of course they are all connected, they came from the same place.
when you reason the formulation of the hypothesis you are using faith-based assumptions. if there is something wrong with the assumption in science, the hypothesis fails. if there is something wrong with the assumption in religion people fight each other or themselves. where as science is the measurement and manipulation of the world outside oneself, religion is the measurement manipulation of everything within ones character.
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? No, science has no assumption that there is "reason for existence." That's teleological thinking and has absolutely NO place in science. It is, however, central to religions. This is really philosophy of science 101, and if you get this wrong, then you have no place in science at all. For the last time, science and religion share absolutely nothing methodologically and, historically, only the fact that they are both expressions of human behaviour.
is it just me, or are all sciences simply the study of context via concepts? because if thats true, wouldn't religion hold the same validity?
Well, it is not just you.
If you are talking to a positivist, he will disagree and say that science and religion don't do the same thing.
If you talk to a non-essentialist, he will mostly agree.
Of course everything that involves thought also involves categorisation as a sort of a "making sense".
in epistemology we ask whether the concepts that we use have can have some sort of validity or not. Of course every philosopher has a different opinion on this. A very famous book on this question is Kant's critique of pure reason; he makes some distinctions between "science" and "relegion" or metaphysics, but also shows certain similarities. Of course, something that is quite a bit old now.
During the last century, there was one major revolution going on in academia (esp. in linguistics, biology, anthropology, literary studies, philosophy and psychology): Structuralism. Structuralism goes back to the french linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. He emphasized on how language is arbitrary in nature, on how "valeur" comes only into being through relations inside a system and developed the concepts of the -etic and -emic structures. Another question is: what establishes (conceptual) unity? (Post-)structuralists see that every criteria (e.g. for unity) is just an arbitrary choice. (This is also something that we can observe quite well in cognitive linguistics.)
I also want to mention Michael Foucault, who wrote a lot about what gets recognized as "science" and what not. These evaluations are depending on what he calls "discourse" and also arbitrary in nature. Just look back to the middle ages: Theology was the only science, every "other" discipline was just seen as a special part or instrument of/for theology. We nowadays often think that people back than were dumb to call (their) theology a science. The truth is that they had different requirements for "science" than us, they were as good enough to fulfill their standards just as we are to fulfill ours. Every "period"(language is ALWAYS conceptualization) brings its own shift of paradigms with it. I have read most of your discussion with +FabioP here. Don't listen to him. The Vienna Circle and the behaviorists have left a deep mark on psychology. I don't want to say that the scholars from the middle ages were better than the positivsts. I want to point out that nobody knows the noumenal world and somehow we are all doing metaphysics. Whoever claims to be wiser lies.
Everything we claim to be "knowlegde" is an arbitrary projection of arbitrarily created and arbitrarily chosen structures (=concepts) onto reality.
I also like that you rather speak of "context" than of "reality". maybe I should add this to my vocabulary.
how could I forget the following? there is a book concerned especially with your question: the dialectic of Enlightenment by Horkheimer and Adorno.
btw: it is not just a great book about the philosophy of science but also a great book about or on humanity and inhumanity, written during WWII.
They focus very much on how "science" evolved out of "religion". (I state a necessary falsehood for explanatory reasons, but you have to read the book to correct me.)
That's really no better. Like it or not, humanity didn't survive thanks to religion. For the most part, humanity survived in spite of religion. Ignoring this very simple fact means ignoring history. Live with it.
im trying to say for the scientifically illiterate science is purely faith. im also trying to say that science religion and psychology are all linked at the source of cognition (the mind) and there is no way to completely separate one from another.
For the last time, science did not develop from ANY kind of religious paradigm. If anything, science was a reaction to the prevalent religious paradigm of the time. As I have already written: "The fact that a few early adopters of the scientific method happened to be religious figures is of no consequence. If anything, whenever science was done properly, some religious authority got seriously butthurt. You clearly need to brush up on your history as well as on your science."
First of all, this is a video about cognitive science. That aside, I've never seen a peer-reviewed religious publication. Faith and scientific investigation are entirely, utterly antithetical. I cannot stress enough how they have absolutely nothing in common. On the surface or at any depth. The fact that religions make claims to universal knowledge is completely irrelevant.
Trying to establish that faith and empirical research are fundamentally the same thing is really a terrible, terrible way to try and start a career in cognitive science. Or in any area of science, for that matter. And this coming from a cognitive science post-graduate student. If serious academia and research is not what you're aiming for, however, go right ahead.
both religion and science have the predisposed, faith-based assumptions that there is reason for existence, and that there is order to the universe. both fail to describe huge huge aspects of reality as a whole. until science can literally create a separate reality, it and religion will always be attached somewhere
hmm well you and i have two different ideas of what religion is. and i dont disagree with your definition of what a hypothesis is, but you apparently dont know how to hypothesize..
religion is observation of phenomena, you arent saying anything. some might say you are your own religion if you can't be receptive to others views. others might call you a bigot. but im not for the labels. im sorry if your opinions of religion arent as adaptive as your opinions of science.
I know you think you're being extremely deep, but I assure you that's not the case. Science is more than capable of asking the questions it will then try to answer. It's called hypothesis formulation and hypothesis testing. More importantly, science can ask much more poignant questions than any religion or belief system ever did. What Einstein had to say on the subject is irrelevant. He was a brilliant physicist, not a philosopher.
You keep assuming that religion can somehow account for some mysterious half of reality, but never bother to back this silly claim with anything more than your own words. As it happens, scientists are perfectly capable of successfully carrying out scientific research without having to contemplate ridiculous metaphysical and mythological notions. That's why science works as a method to explain reality. That's why science replaced religion as that method rather than stemming from it.
I don't much care for disagreeing with people, but I have no qualms about correcting them if they're talking nonsense. And the mantra that science is the offspring of religion is exactly that, nonsense. The fact that a few early adopters of the scientific method happened to be religious figures is of no consequence. If anything, whenever science was done properly, some religious authority got seriously butthurt. You clearly need to brush up on your history as well as on your science.
Ok, now you're just talking nonsense. Science studies reality in a systematic way and makes predictions about it. Commandments and religious rules are normative tenets (some more abominable than others). Entirely different purposes, absolutely nothing in common. I'm not sure you even have any idea of what you're actually trying to say.
i think you just have a predisposed hatred toward the word religion, you need to realize there is a reason they exist, and science (along with humanity as we know it) was a product of it
Wrong. Hypothesis formulation relies on the observation of underlying phenomena. There is nothing faith-based about it. And religion and measurement shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. Measurements are only possible of quantifiable phenomena. That is, of real phenomena. Once more, I invite you to read up on the scientific method, because you don't seem to know much about it.
Feel free to defend your definition of religion any time, but please, do bother to back it up. Your last statement, too.
lol.. the graduate student with degree in conceptualization (? I guess) talking about definitions.
Are you not familiar with valeur in semantics?
"look it up in a dictionary" is the best thing that has happened to youtube in 2016.
Religion was nothing but a sadly necessary detour while we found actual explanations for natural phenomena. Elevating it to anything more than that is simply idiotic. And for the last time, hypothesis-making follows observation of phenomena and it's nothing like "this must be it!" You have clearly never done science and hopefully never will.