Reflections cont'd (3)
Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman
Diane.Lesley-neuman at colorado.edu
Fri Mar 24 00:19:21 UTC 2006
Direct falsifiability is not the only method of proof. there is evidence from
the method of converging operations that would eventually set up the precise
experiment you are looking for. You have made other claims that images have
nothing to do with experience--easy ones to test and dismiss.
Right now the evidence for direct realsim is deduced through converging
operations from many different fields of investigation. The separation of the
distal and proximal stimulus is more of a theoretical proposition that is being
used in ongoing research. Do we directly perceive the tree or the sensations
produced by the tree? Separating the physical object from our perception of it
is a problem. Sometimes people get "burned"from very cold dishes they think
are hot. Blisters form. The McGurk effect shows how our pereceptual system
merges visual and auditory modalities for the construction of a percept.
This evidence does show that the actual sound can differ from our percept of
it--in other words, the distal stimulus and the proximal stimulus can give
different information to "perceive"the object.
Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
Institute for Cognitive Science
University of Colorado at Boulder
Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>:
> Interesting response.
> Does that mean you're not going to try to rebut my point about direct
> realism being unfalsifiable? I don't blame you, since it's something that
> I consider unchanged since the days of Thomas Reid and David Hume. I
> believe that if people in the related fields of psychology,
> psycholinguistics, speech, hearing and cognitive science had gotten
> themselves up to speed on ideas that were tried and discarded for good
> reason in the 18th century, they wouldn't be wasting time and money trying
> to make them work today.
> -- Mark
> P.S. You are in fact preaching to the choir about low scientific standards
> in linguistics. I was harping on that over thirty years ago, and
> ultimately left linguistics for a while partly because of the lack of any
> signs of improvement.
> P.P.S. Undergraduates know exactly what you're talking about because
> they've been indoctrinated to your system of beliefs. That's not much of
> an argument either, is it?
> Mark P. Line
> San Antonio, TX
> Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> > Mark,
> > People in the related fields of psychology, psycholinguistics, speech and
> > hearing do it all of the time. Even undergraduates in these fields manage
> > these research paradigms, execute projects and know exactly what I am
> > talking about. You simply are not familiar with the literature, and you
> > are calling things nonsense without reading anything, which is an easy
> > thing to get away with in linguistics, because of the low scientific
> > standards in our field.
> > Linguistics as a field can no longer afford the luxury of remaining
> > willfully ignorant of research that applies to their theories and their
> > professional practice, in order to maintain their autonomy in a war over
> > political turf. Because this behavior causes us to lose ground
> > scientifically, and dictates funding priorities of university programs.
> > Eventually, linguistics programs will lose their standing and
> > credibility, be unfunded or so underfunded as to lose their autonomy,
> > because of their intellectually and scientifically backward behavior.
> > --
> > Diane Lesley-Neuman, M. Ed.
> > Linguistics Department
> > Institute for Cognitive Science
> > University of Colorado at Boulder
> > Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>:
> >> Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> >> > You are calling upon concepts and images built and generated by
> >> > experience.
> >> That's a pretty hard claim to substantiate, isn't it?
> >> In any event, the point is that it doesn't make much sense that
> >> perception
> >> would evolve to work independently of all this magnificent ability to
> >> construct images of anything on the fly, and that an hypothesis that it
> >> has done so anyway would be unfalsifiable.
> >> -- Mark
> >> Mark P. Line
> >> Polymathix
> >> San Antonio, TX
> >> > Quoting "Mark P. Line" <mark at polymathix.com>:
> >> >
> >> >> Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman wrote:
> >> >> > "Reality makes language intelligible.""Language makes reality
> >> >> > intelligible."
> >> >> > How about Carol Fowler and Direct Realism?
> >> >>
> >> >> I can see images in my mind when I hallucinate, and there's no direct
> >> >> realism involved. I can see images in my mind when I imagine a scene
> >> >> with
> >> >> my eyes closed, and there's no direct realism involved. Why would I
> >> want
> >> >> to postulate that there's anything special, much less more direct or
> >> >> more
> >> >> realistic, about perception? If direct realists had any *evidence* of
> >> >> something special, they wouldn't have to postulate it.
> -- Mark
> Mark P. Line
> San Antonio, TX
More information about the Funknet