Positive Thinking? - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 26, 2005

Positive Thinking?

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher a very dangerous statement for a scientist and anyone who engages in rational thought. "

Or, for that matter, for even a Democrat or a Republican who believes that everything in their respective party's platform is the best.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher
"This is the kind of irrational thinking I have encountered only from religious fanatics when discussing issues that threaten their belief system."

But if you really a real philosopher you know that even science is only a set of beliefs (hypotheses) waiting to be confirmed or discomfirmed. That's what keeps we scientists, who went into academics to do research, in business. Science is only a method - not a body of facts. Everything we do in science is tentative - awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Rigor Mortis
"Or, for that matter, for even a Democrat or a Republican who believes that everything in their respective party's platform is the best. "

True, Rigor Mortis, but at least the public doesn't believe most of what they hear from politicians. We at least have checks and balances in government so that debate exist even when one party controls both the executive and legislature branch.

This bring to mind another question. Are there any checks and balances at USM? Are the Faculty Senate, Academic Council and Graduate Council really effective now that we see what SFT has done to get around them? It seems that only the media combined with SACS has produced the only checks on SFT.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher
"It the current President's Update, President Thames begins with a very dangerous statement for a scientist and anyone who engages in rational thought. He admits that he neglects to consider all of the data or information available.
"It has been my practice throughout my tenure as a faculty member and administrator at The University of Southern Mississippi to focus on the positives and to continue to move our university forward no matter what negative factors swirled around me. Some may perceive this thought process as naïve, but I see it as a necessary practice that keeps me from losing focus, which would negatively affect progress."
"

Read between the lines. This really says, "I am not going to deal with the criticisms of my administration. I am going to continue being positive and thinking that I am perfectly great. If I don't do this, I will have to cooperate with faculty and staff, and I wouldn't get things done my way (i.e. 'progress')."

Note also the continuing narcicism. The "negative factors" are "swirling around ME." He still thinks he is the University.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Awaiting the truth
"But if you really a real philosopher you know that even science is only a set of beliefs (hypotheses) waiting to be confirmed or discomfirmed. That's what keeps we scientists, who went into academics to do research, in business. Science is only a method - not a body of facts. Everything we do in science is tentative - awaiting confirmation or disconfirmation. "

Now we have to be very careful here, Awaiting the Truth. Science uses very precise language with operational definitions. I can agree with your statement above only if you don't start equivocating on the meaning of words. You used the word "belief" above and put "hypotheses" in parentheses. A scientific hypothesis is very different from a belief. The word belief refers to "stories" held without objective evidence. Scientific theories are built on assumptions or hypotheses that can be and are tested. They can only be proved wrong. You can't prove a scientific theory. There is no test of a "belief" and in fact many believe many things in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

Sorry, but you hit one of my buttons. I guess I have been debating too many "religious issues" lately.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" Read between the lines. This really says, "I am not going to deal with the criticisms of my administration. I am going to continue being positive and thinking that I am perfectly great. If I don't do this, I will have to cooperate with faculty and staff, and I wouldn't get things done my way (i.e. 'progress')." Note also the continuing narcicism. The "negative factors" are "swirling around ME." He still thinks he is the University."

I agree Foot Soldier. Your analysis is just as scary to me. Is this what people consider a "strong" leader? That is, do they think, "if SFT is so confident in what he believes he doesn't have to consider opposing issues" then I don't have to worry about what he does? I can have confidence because he is a strong leader." To continue with the religious analogy, if the pastor is a strong speaker with conviction, then he must be right and know God's will. In fact, didn't SFT once say he listens to God, or something like that?

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher
"
To continue with the religious analogy, if the pastor is a strong speaker with conviction, then he must be right and know God's will. In fact, didn't SFT once say he listens to God, or something like that? "

Yes he did. I believe he made the point that God hadn't yet told him that he'd done anything wrong. God, of course, immediately began to post messages for Shelby on the message board: "you're not listening . . . . "

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher
" Now we have to be very careful here, Awaiting the Truth. Science uses very precise language with operational definitions. I can agree with your statement above only if you don't start equivocating on the meaning of words. You used the word "belief" above and put "hypotheses" in parentheses. A scientific hypothesis is very different from a belief. The word belief refers to "stories" held without objective evidence. Scientific theories are built on assumptions or hypotheses that can be and are tested. They can only be proved wrong. You can't prove a scientific theory. There is no test of a "belief" and in fact many believe many things in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Sorry, but you hit one of my buttons. I guess I have been debating too many "religious issues" lately. "

Philosopher, you are most certainly correct in saying that science uses precise language with operational definitions. Too bad the curriculum of introductory courses in chemistry and biology don't include that principle in a formal manner. Most of the undergraduates I have known who have completed those courses don't seem to have the foggiest idea about the importance of precision and operational definitions. You are also correct when you say there is a difference between a belief and a hypothesis. But I did clarify what I meant by 'belief" in the context I used that word: I placed the term 'hypothesis' in parentheses. I didn't think I had to define the word 'hypotheses' operationally for the purposes of posting. Uh oh. There I've used a term I know you will dislike: "think." Sorry about that. If we were having this discussion in person I could provide an operational definition for you. But not here. You said that one can't "prove" a scientific theory. Agreed 100% - no more than one can "prove" a religious belief. Please note that my post only talked about confirming or discomfirming hypotheses - it said nothing about "proving" scientific theories. I must add, however, that scientists must often proceed by faith. Science and religion to have quite a bit in common. But that's another topic for another day at another place.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

In clinical terms, SFT's statement about positive thinking is an indication of narcissism, as various posters to this board have pointed out. If Thames ever admitted that he was less than "perfectly great," he would have to conclude that he was worthless, and would fall apart.

As far as philosophy of science is concerned, here's the important point. If SFT conducted himself in the lab the same way he tries to run the university, he would ignore any data that didn't support his favored hypothesis. And even SFT must understand that he would quickly fail as a scientist, were he to go down that road.

I have to take issue, though, with the inclusion of "operational definitions" as a component of the scientific method. I agree that scientists have to be highly attentive to measurement issues, and to the specific implementations or consequences of their theories that they are choosing to test in a particular experiment. But I don't see how operationism (the doctrine of operational definitions) will actually help anyone do these things.

According to strict operationism, every scientific concept must be defined "in terms of measurement operations," and emptied of any theoretical content. An operationist would have to say that intelligence just is a score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, or that state anxiety just is a galvanic skin resistance reading, or self-esteem is just a score on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale... and so on.

Operationism was dreamed up by a physicist (Percy Bridgman), ignored by other physicists, taken apart by philosophers of science (and these are Logical Positivist philosophers of science we're talking about... people you would expect to be sympathetic to the impulse behind operationism), and embraced by psychologists, particularly in the United States, during a period (the early 1930s) when nearly all of them were deathly afraid of being written off as unscientific. By the late 1950s, important contributors to psychological method like Paul Meehl and Donald Campbell had rejected operationism, but the language of operational definitions still hangs around in methods courses in the social sciences. It's time that operationism made its exit from the Experimental Psych books and became an episode in the History of Psych texts.

Sorry about the soapboxing, but I teach Experimental Psychology and History of Psychology, where I have to contend with the operationist legacy just about every semester.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Awaiting the truth
"Philosopher, you are most certainly correct in saying that science uses precise language with operational definitions. Too bad the curriculum of introductory courses in chemistry and biology don't include that principle in a formal manner. Most of the undergraduates I have known who have completed those courses don't seem to have the foggiest idea about the importance of precision and operational definitions. You are also correct when you say there is a difference between a belief and a hypothesis. But I did clarify what I meant by 'belief" in the context I used that word: I placed the term 'hypothesis' in parentheses. I didn't think I had to define the word 'hypotheses' operationally for the purposes of posting. Uh oh. There I've used a term I know you will dislike: "think." Sorry about that. If we were having this discussion in person I could provide an operational definition for you. But not here. You said that one can't "prove" a scientific theory. Agreed 100% - no more than one can "prove" a religious belief. Please note that my post only talked about confirming or discomfirming hypotheses - it said nothing about "proving" scientific theories. I must add, however, that scientists must often proceed by faith. Science and religion to have quite a bit in common. But that's another topic for another day at another place. "

Awaiting the Truth, having had many discussions with people wanting to get "Scientific Creationism" aka "Intelligent Design" into school curricula, I have become very cautious as to how they misuse terms or direct their listeners into directions that hinder correct logic. You were taking small steps in that direction and I just wanted to point this out to the readers. If I was correct I expected you to continue to misdirect readers into thinking science and religion are similar and stand on similar foundations. Sure enough you did that in this post.

You write: "You said that one can't "prove" a scientific theory. Agreed 100% - no more than one can "prove" a religious belief. " Sounds good except it is misleading. You forgot to point out that a scientific theory can be proven wrong, but a belief cannot.

Another example: You said, "I must add, however, that scientists must often proceed by faith. Science and religion to have quite a bit in common." This is true only if you misuse the word "faith". Religious faith is not based on objective evidence. A scientific assumption is based an evidence or what is presently objectively known and the assumption can be proved incorrect.

Awaiting the Truth, we will be here all day and never make any progress with this unless we can agree to the meaning of words. As I said before, this is exactly how discussions go when "creationism" is debated with scientists. The general public is not usually trained in the correct use of logic and are unaware of the logical fallacies committed by the "creationist".

Again, please forgive me if I misinterpreted your remarks.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"In clinical terms, SFT's statement about positive thinking is an indication of narcissism, as various posters to this board have pointed out. If Thames ever admitted that he was less than "perfectly great," he would have to conclude that he was worthless, and would fall apart. As far as philosophy of science is concerned, here's the important point. If SFT conducted himself in the lab the same way he tries to run the university, he would ignore any data that didn't support his favored hypothesis. And even SFT must understand that he would quickly fail as a scientist, were he to go down that road. I have to take issue, though, with the inclusion of "operational definitions" as a component of the scientific method. I agree that scientists have to be highly attentive to measurement issues, and to the specific implementations or consequences of their theories that they are choosing to test in a particular experiment. But I don't see how operationism (the doctrine of operational definitions) will actually help anyone do these things. According to strict operationism, every scientific concept must be defined "in terms of measurement operations," and emptied of any theoretical content. An operationist would have to say that intelligence just is a score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, or that state anxiety just is a galvanic skin resistance reading, or self-esteem is just a score on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale... and so on. Operationism was dreamed up by a physicist (Percy Bridgman), ignored by other physicists, taken apart by philosophers of science (and these are Logical Positivist philosophers of science we're talking about... people you would expect to be sympathetic to the impulse behind operationism), and embraced by psychologists, particularly in the United States, during a period (the early 1930s) when nearly all of them were deathly afraid of being written off as unscientific. By the late 1950s, important contributors to psychological method like Paul Meehl and Donald Campbell had rejected operationism, but the language of operational definitions still hangs around in methods courses in the social sciences. It's time that operationism made its exit from the Experimental Psych books and became an episode in the History of Psych texts. Sorry about the soapboxing, but I teach Experimental Psychology and History of Psychology, where I have to contend with the operationist legacy just about every semester. Robert Campbell"

As always, I enjoyed your interesting post, Robert. Your views are somewhat different from mine, I think because of the differences between Chemistry/Physics and your field of Experimental Psychology. Since there is very little going on with USM and SFT this Saturday, I wonder if you will answer some questions for me . Is there such a thing as "intelligence" which is scientifically defined? If it doesn't have an objectively defined meaning, how can it be scientific? (I know some in Psychology may fear that they may not be considered scientific. My hope is your answer will not be based on that fear. ) The other question: Is "race" objectively defined? Can it be considered a scientific term?

Your statement, "According to strict operationism, every scientific concept must be defined "in terms of measurement operations," and emptied of any theoretical content." I can agree with this except for the "emptied of any theoretical content." Terms need to be defined operationally so one can determine if and when they apply, but all language is subject to the current extent of knowledge.

By the way, I'm not in phiosophy, if you haven't guessed already.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

Can intelligence be defined scientifically?

I take that to mean, is intelligence a real dimension (or dimensions) of human mental functioning?

I think the answer is yes, but there is more than one kind of intelligence, so there are multiple dimensions (Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences points in the right direction here, but there is much more work to be done).

In turn, if intelligence has multiple dimensions, then a test like the Wechsler, which presumes a single dimension, is at best highly incomplete...

But notice that you can't even start answering the question (what's a good way to measure intelligence) until you put forward some kind of theory of what intelligence is. Operationism cuts off that inquiry before it can get started.

If you read Bridgman's book The Logic of Modern Physics, published in 1927, you'll see that he came up with operationism because he was worried that such physical concepts as weight or time or gravity or temperature would become unstable--unless they were emptied of theoretical content. He was living through a period of major theoretical upheaval in physics, and he wanted the concepts of weight and time and so forth not to be affected by changes in theories about weight and time and so forth. Other physicists, by and large, didn't share his worry.

As for race, well... you can ask what meaning it would have from the standpoint of physical anthropology. But that would hardly begin to explain what's been done with the notion culturally. The social sciences have the unique privilege, or predicament, of having to account for human notions that have a slender objective basis--or, in some cases, none at all.

Robert Campbell

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Can intelligence be defined scientifically? I take that to mean, is intelligence a real dimension (or dimensions) of human mental functioning? I think the answer is yes, but there is more than one kind of intelligence, so there are multiple dimensions (Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences points in the right direction here, but there is much more work to be done). In turn, if intelligence has multiple dimensions, then a test like the Wechsler, which presumes a single dimension, is at best highly incomplete... But notice that you can't even start answering the question (what's a good way to measure intelligence) until you put forward some kind of theory of what intelligence is. Operationism cuts off that inquiry before it can get started. If you read Bridgman's book The Logic of Modern Physics, published in 1927, you'll see that he came up with operationism because he was worried that such physical concepts as weight or time or gravity or temperature would become unstable--unless they were emptied of theoretical content. He was living through a period of major theoretical upheaval in physics, and he wanted the concepts of weight and time and so forth not to be affected by changes in theories about weight and time and so forth. Other physicists, by and large, didn't share his worry. As for race, well... you can ask what meaning it would have from the standpoint of physical anthropology. But that would hardly begin to explain what's been done with the notion culturally. The social sciences have the unique privilege, or predicament, of having to account for human notions that have a slender objective basis--or, in some cases, none at all. Robert Campbell"

Robert, as a scientist not well versed in the social sciences, my naive take on this is that intelligence is not a scientific term and the problem is we are locked in using a primitive language. Scientifically words are invented to represent ideas and your excellent explanation of the "dimensions" of "intelligence" implies we have a word but have yet determined its meaning. It seems to me that the language should be dropped and a new more precise language having operational meaning be used in its place. As a physical scientist I see it just the opposite from your description, "Operationism cuts off that inquiry before it can get started." It was trying to tell us we didn't have precise ideas for the words and that's why inquiry is cut off. It's a safety value to prevent B.S. being spread as science and knowledge. I agree with you about "race'.

Robert, this has been an enjoyable discussion on a dreary afternoon in H'burg. Just think what discussions we could have on this board once SFT is gone. Thanks for answering my questions.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Philosopher
"It the current President's Update, President Thames begins with a very dangerous statement for a scientist and anyone who engages in rational thought.

Paint making is in no way a scientific work and Shelby Thames is in no way near a scientist

, NKOB.

Date: Feb 26, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Can intelligence be defined scientifically?"

I don't know whether or not it can be defined scientifically, but it can sure be defined operationally: Intelligence is what an intelligence test measures (and then, of course, reduce it to the data language by specifying operationally how the intelligence test was constructed). You can't get more operational than that. It's certainly as operational as the concepts used by the physicist et. al.

Date: Feb 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Percy
"I don't know whether or not it can be defined scientifically, but it can sure be defined operationally: Intelligence is what an intelligence test measures (and then, of course, reduce it to the data language by specifying operationally how the intelligence test was constructed). You can't get more operational than that. It's certainly as operational as the concepts used by the physicist et. al. "

I'm with you Percy. Some think words are magic. They think they are communicating even though no one knows what the words mean. These people think the best words are ones that have so many meanings (or none at all) that everyone can use them without fear of being wrong. There is much noise made, but nothing is being said. However, it is a good living if your business is words. If you get paid by how many you write or speak, who cares if there is no meaning. Word inflation!

Date: Feb 27, 2005

So, if words won't do it, turn to music.

On "Songs Without Words":

"There is so much talk about music and so little is said. I believe that words are not at all up to it, and if I should find that they were adequate I would stop making music altogether. People usually complain that music is so ambiguous, and what they are supposed to think when they hear it is so unclear while words are understood by everyone. But for me it is exactly the opposite—and not just with entire discourses, but also with individual words; these to seem to be so ambiguous, so indefinite, in comparison with good music, which fills one’s soul with a thousand better things than words. What the music I love expresses to me are thoughts not too indefinite for words, but rather too definite. . . .So if you ask me what I was thinking of, I will say, just the song as it stands there. And if I happen to have had a specific word or specific words in mind for one or another of these songs, I can never divulge them to anyone, because the same word means one thing to one person and something else to another, because only the song can say the same thing, can arouse the same feelings in one person as in another—a feeling which is not, however, expressed by the same words."

Date: Feb 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy
"So, if words won't do it, turn to music. On "Songs Without Words": "There is so much talk about music and so little is said. I believe that words are not at all up to it, and if I should find that they were adequate I would stop making music altogether. People usually complain that music is so ambiguous, and what they are supposed to think when they hear it is so unclear while words are understood by everyone. But for me it is exactly the opposite—and not just with entire discourses, but also with individual words; these to seem to be so ambiguous, so indefinite, in comparison with good music, which fills one’s soul with a thousand better things than words. What the music I love expresses to me are thoughts not too indefinite for words, but rather too definite. . . .So if you ask me what I was thinking of, I will say, just the song as it stands there. And if I happen to have had a specific word or specific words in mind for one or another of these songs, I can never divulge them to anyone, because the same word means one thing to one person and something else to another, because only the song can say the same thing, can arouse the same feelings in one person as in another—a feeling which is not, however, expressed by the same words." "

Yes, but if the words will determine if you invade a country, if you do brain surgery or if you will need resourses to keep everyone alive, then you better use very precise language or many will die. Of course, to keep happy and motivated while we wait, music will do nicely.

Date: Feb 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Can intelligence be defined scientifically? I take that to mean, is intelligence a real dimension (or dimensions) of human mental functioning? I think the answer is yes, but there is more than one kind of intelligence, so there are multiple dimensions (Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences points in the right direction here, but there is much more work to be done). In turn, if intelligence has multiple dimensions, then a test like the Wechsler, which presumes a single dimension, is at best highly incomplete... But notice that you can't even start answering the question (what's a good way to measure intelligence) until you put forward some kind of theory of what intelligence is. Operationism cuts off that inquiry before it can get started. If you read Bridgman's book The Logic of Modern Physics, published in 1927, you'll see that he came up with operationism because he was worried that such physical concepts as weight or time or gravity or temperature would become unstable--unless they were emptied of theoretical content. He was living through a period of major theoretical upheaval in physics, and he wanted the concepts of weight and time and so forth not to be affected by changes in theories about weight and time and so forth. Other physicists, by and large, didn't share his worry. As for race, well... you can ask what meaning it would have from the standpoint of physical anthropology. But that would hardly begin to explain what's been done with the notion culturally. The social sciences have the unique privilege, or predicament, of having to account for human notions that have a slender objective basis--or, in some cases, none at all. Robert Campbell"

Robert-

As a clinical psychologist trained by an experimental psychologist, I almost never use the term "intelligence." If pressed, I'll use terms like executive cognitive functioning when I mean an array of information-processing abilities (or when I am interested in components of ECF, I might use other terms). You referred to Paul Meehl and others, who in the 1950s spoke of hypothetical constructs and interening variables conceptualized within a nomological net (in contrast to defining constructs by operations). In many ways, this has driven the scientific thinking of social scientists in the years since, even behaviorists who still talk about defining a construct by its operations (I fall into this trap also and talk about, say aggression being defined by a level of shock set for another in a laboratory). I think Philosopher was thinking about quantification or measurement issues in his or her postings about operationalization. Many of our constructs may seem more distal from single observations compared to physicists' constructs (which is arguable), which may make the distinction between definition by operations and pure measurement more salient to us. Just a thought.

My apologies to readers who have no clue what I am talking about, and could care less.

Date: Feb 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: MB
" Robert- As a clinical psychologist trained by an experimental psychologist, I almost never use the term "intelligence." If pressed, I'll use terms like executive cognitive functioning when I mean an array of information-processing abilities (or when I am interested in components of ECF, I might use other terms). You referred to Paul Meehl and others, who in the 1950s spoke of hypothetical constructs and interening variables conceptualized within a nomological net (in contrast to defining constructs by operations). In many ways, this has driven the scientific thinking of social scientists in the years since, even behaviorists who still talk about defining a construct by its operations (I fall into this trap also and talk about, say aggression being defined by a level of shock set for another in a laboratory). I think Philosopher was thinking about quantification or measurement issues in his or her postings about operationalization. Many of our constructs may seem more distal from single observations compared to physicists' constructs (which is arguable), which may make the distinction between definition by operations and pure measurement more salient to us. Just a thought. My apologies to readers who have no clue what I am talking about, and could care less. "

This was a very clear explanation, MB. I actually followed most of it. You helped me understand better the communication problems that arise when physical scientist and social scientist try to discuss "scientific definitions".

Included in "quantification or measurement" operations, I was also considering existence determination. How can you even tell if a "property " exist is you don't operationally measure something?

I'm interested in seeing Robert's take on your post.

Date: Feb 27, 2005

What? USM isn't the best of all possible worlds? I am shocked...

Date: Feb 27, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Dr. Pangloss
"What? USM isn't the best of all possible worlds? I am shocked..."

There seems to be a misunderstanding, Dr. Pangloss. That should read: USM is the best of all possible "wurls"