3 ms·

You are doing the equivalent of citing blood-letters to discredit the field of medicine. Or citing the four elements to discredit the field of physics. Modern

You are doing the equivalent of citing blood-letters to discredit the field of medicine. Or citing the four elements to discredit the field of physics. Modern cognitive science looks like this: - https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oam-1987-TUB2 - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148504 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002779290049N https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001002... - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027798000067 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100... Again, with all due respect, you very clearly do not know what you are talking about. Nobody takes Lacan seriously, even in the lowest tier of politicized social-science (which in turn is not taken terribly seriously by cognitive scientists). If you're actually interested in human perception, cognition and behavior, I am happy to point you in the right direction.

p-e-w 3y ago
You're talking about cognitive science, I am talking about psychology. The two are not the same thing, nor is one a subfield of the other. The papers you have linked are more closely related to neuroscience than to psychology. I'm well aware that neuroscience is a proper scientific discipline; I'm also well aware that psychology is something else entirely. The psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, is still a part of psych major curricula around the world. Therapists with psychology degrees still practice psychoanalysis, which, while not identical to what was happening 100 years ago, is still strongly influenced by Freud and Jung. Therefore, claims that the field has left its past behind just aren't credible. And I'm not even going to go into psychology's entanglement with postmodern intellectualism and the political left.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Cognitive science is the term I am using to distinguish from classical psychology. Cognitive science very much is psych. Your argument hinges on out-of-date notions and false distinctions. Again, if you were actually curious about psychology, you’d want to engage with the scientific psychology literature instead of putting on blinders and insisting that the psychoanalytic tradition is the only relevant one. I’m left to conclude that you’re more interested in looking down your nose at a field you don’t respect than actually understanding anything. Let us know if that changes. I’m always happy to point you towards the interesting literature in whatever subfield you’re curious about.

p-e-w 3y ago

You're talking about cognitive science, I am talking about psychology. The two are not the same thing, nor is one a subfield of the other. The papers you have linked are more closely related to neuroscience than to psychology. I'm well aware that neuroscience is a proper scientific discipline; I'm also well aware that psychology is something else entirely. The psychoanalytic tradition, including Freud, is still a part of psych major curricula around the world. Therapists with psychology degrees still practice psychoanalysis, which, while not identical to what was happening 100 years ago, is still strongly influenced by Freud and Jung. Therefore, claims that the field has left its past behind just aren't credible. And I'm not even going to go into psychology's entanglement with postmodern intellectualism and the political left.

omginternets 3y ago
Cognitive science is the term I am using to distinguish from classical psychology. Cognitive science very much is psych. Your argument hinges on out-of-date notions and false distinctions. Again, if you were actually curious about psychology, you’d want to engage with the scientific psychology literature instead of putting on blinders and insisting that the psychoanalytic tradition is the only relevant one. I’m left to conclude that you’re more interested in looking down your nose at a field you don’t respect than actually understanding anything. Let us know if that changes. I’m always happy to point you towards the interesting literature in whatever subfield you’re curious about.