Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!duke!unc!mcnc!ncsu!fostel
From: fostel@ncsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: RE: Rational Psychology
Message-ID: <2357@ncsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Oct-83 01:07:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncsu.2357
Posted: Wed Oct  5 01:07:31 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Oct-83 02:04:13 EDT
Lines: 36



    Someones recent attempt to make the meaning of "Rational Psychology" seem
    trivial misses the point a number of people have made in commenting on the
    odd nature of the name.  The reasoning was something like this:
     1) rational "X" means the same thing in spite of what "X" is.
     2) => rational psychology is a clear and simple thing
     3) wake up guys, youre being dumb.
    Well, I think this line misses at least one point.  The argument above
    is probably sound provided one accepts the initial premise, which I do not
    neccessarily accept.  Another example of the logic may help.
     1) Brute Force elaboration solve problems of set membership.  E.g. just
        look at the item and compare it with every member of the set.  This
        is a true statement for a wide range of possible sets.
     2) Real Numbers are a kind of set.
     3) Wake up Cantor, youre wasting (or wasted) your time.
    It seems quite clear that in the latter example, the premise is naive and
    simply fails to apply to sets of infinite proportions. (Or more properly
    one must go to some effort to justify such use.)

    The same issue applies to the notion of Rational Psychology.  Does it make
    sense to attempt to apply techniques which may be completely inadequate?
    Rational analysis may fail completely to explain the workings of the mind,
    esp when we are looking at the "non-analytic" capabilities that are
    implied by psychology.  We are on the edge of a philosophical debate, with
    terms like "dual-ism" and "phsical-ism" etc marking out party lines.

    It may be just as rediculous to some people to propose a rational study
    of psychology as it seems to most of us that one use finite analysis
    to deal with trans-finite cardinalities as it seems to some people to
    propose to explain the mind via physics alone.  Clearly, the people who
    expect rational analytic method to be fruitful in the field of psychology
    are welcome to coin a new name for themselve.  But if they, or anyone else
    has really "Got it now" please write a dissertation on the subject and
    enter history along side Kant, St Thomas Aquinus, Kierkergard ....
    ----GaryFostel----