Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!rjf
From: rjf@ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: inten(s/t)ion, introspection
Message-ID: <2356@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 18-Jan-87 14:17:00 EST
Article-I.D.: eagle.2356
Posted: Sun Jan 18 14:17:00 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Jan-87 00:18:03 EST
References: <3784@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: rjf@ukc.ukc.ac.uk (R.J.Faichney)
Distribution: comp.ai
Organization: U of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, UK
Lines: 28

In article <3784@curly.ucla-cs.UCLA.EDU> berke@CS.UCLA.EDU (Peter Berke) writes:
>[..]
>2)  I thought introspection was out since Freud demonstrated "the" 
>unconcious.
>
>(Frege's single quotes used to denote a word rather than
>it's meaning (whatever that is), double quotes to
>denote the usual meaning of a word, but to emphasize the fact that
>enclosed words are used in a technical sense.)

Can 'introspection' be 'out'? Surely you are "thinking" of 'extraspection'.

More seriously: I don't follow the reasoning which implies that the existence
of the unconscious invalidates introspection.  Having glanced at the history
of psychology, I was under the impression that it was the rise of behaviour-
ism - and associated attempts to make psychology wholly objective and 
respectable - which had caused the (temporary) eclipse of the introspective
method.

-- 
Robin Faichney	  ("My employers don't know anything about this.")

UUCP:  ...mcvax!ukc!rjf             Post: RJ Faichney,
                                          Computing Laboratory,
JANET: rjf@uk.ac.ukc                      The University,
                                          Canterbury,
Phone: 0227 66822 Ext 7681                Kent.
                                          CT2 7NF