Re: The fun with the "categorization"

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/09/04 

Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 14:23:34 +0100

In article <WkvHc.13257$Cr5.10923@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, MrPat
<mrpat@blue-g46.?.invalid> writes
>
>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ingzGHBrNP7AFw13@longley.demon.co.uk...
>> Has it occurred to you that it might suffice just to look more closely
>> at what the experimenters are actually doing, ie their methods?
>> --
>> David Longley
>
>Well the extracts from the essay only give a brief overview of the method;
>they don't go into details.
>
>If you haven't read the second extract (quote) from the essay about
>unconcious thought have a look, it is a short quote: how come people may not
>be consciously able to solve the triad of words, but they can state whether
>it is soluble or not. It would appear that this is only possible because
>they are dealing with the semantics of the problem at some other level than
>concsious thought and this is how they know the problem is soluble or not.
>Otherwise explain how you think they know.
>
>I'm open to learn more about this and your viewpoint, if you aware of the
>details of the method in this experiment or similar priming type experiments
>where the presence of unconcious 'processes' are infered by the
>experimenters, how would you criticize them? Please don't lauch into a
>generalised statement about intensional language and lack of control of
>variables using language that is too technical for me. See if you can start
>with simple primitive concepts that I understand and build on from there-I'm
>not an expert.
>
>It maybe that to do that is too onerous for you to attempt, but it would
>help me to further understand these type of experiments and your viewpoint.
>
>

http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm

Let's see if you can understand how this is related to the work outlined
in the articles in the May 2002 issue of the JEAB entitled: A Tribute to
the Harvard Pigeon Lab (1948–1998).

<http://seab.envmed.rochester.edu/jeab/articles_selected/index.html>

If you're not an expert, what makes you so arrogant? What makes you
think there's a way of talking about matters outside of familiar folk
psychology which isn't "technical* other than your ignorance? It seems
to me that what you should be doing is acquiring some expertise in a
field that you currently have little grasp of, and the way to do that is
to master some of the "technical" language!). 

-- 
David Longley