Re: syllogism
From: David Longley (David_at_lon.demon.co.uk)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: Chris Menzel: "Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)"
- In reply to: Paul Bramscher: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:48:04 +0100
In message <cjcoen$5ci$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>, Paul Bramscher
<brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> writes
>
>My personal inclination is toward extremely cautious
>empirical-inductive hybrid techniques. So when I see adventurous
>theoretical-deductive theories, I generally shelve them into my mental
>category of "interesting, but probably another alchemy or ptolemy." If
>observation follows, rather than comes first, we tend to get
>disillusioned the more we look. I prefer to speak more from hindsight.
The following extract appears in one of the middle sections of
"Fragments" <http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm>. I suggest you
read it in the context of that document, and if possible, within the
context of the project from which it is taken.
'..there may be little or no direct introspective access to higher order
cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of the existence of a
stimulus that importantly influenced a response, (b) unaware of the
existence of the response, and (c) unaware that the stimulus has
affected the response. It is proposed that when people attempt to report
on their cognitive processes, that is, on the processes mediating the
effects of a stimulus on a response, they do not do so on the basis of
any true introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a priori,
implicit causal theories, or judgements about the extent to which a
particular stimulus is a plausible cause of a given response. This
suggests that though people may not be able to observe directly their
cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to report accurately
about them. Accurate reports will occur when influential stimuli are
salient and are plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will
not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not plausible causes.'
R. Nisbett & T. Wilson (1977)
Telling More Than We Can Know: Public Reports on Private Processes
Psychological-Review; 1977 Mar Vol 84(3) 231-259
-- David Longley
- Next message: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: Chris Menzel: "Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)"
- In reply to: Paul Bramscher: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: patty: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
