Scientific methods

[Diane Frances Lesley-Neuman]

The method of converging operations is part of the scientific method.  It works
from a series of operations. You are testing a series of falsifiable
hypotheses,using in the scientific method that you advocate, and advance
through the results. These are methods that are used when trying to open the
black box of perception.
  Direct Realism is not necessarily a postulation that I advocate.  There is,
however,a basis for the claims for the distal and proximal stimulus which is
part of the theory. Regarding the other claims that you were making, there is
indeed evidence that experience influences mental images--pretty basic stuff.
  Findings from mirror neuron research are pretty exciting in that they show
that when actions and vocalizations are observed by a subject, the areas of the
brain which execute the motor actions to imitate them are activated in the
brain of the observer, and that there are neurons dedicated to making that
happen.  This is important to how we learn language--and provide some evidence
to support the concept of gestures in Motor Theory. We learn the gestures--
combined motor actions--or even the neural motor commands--needed to articulate
sounds.


--
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:
> > Direct falsifiability is not the only method of proof.
>
> Proof is for mathematics and other kinds of philosophy, not for science.
> Falsifiability is an uncircumventable criterion of scientific hypotheses.
>
> Should I follow your style and suggest that you read up on the philosophy
> of science before trying to debate it?
>
>
> > You have made other claims that images have nothing to do with
> > experience--easy ones to test and dismiss.
>
> Where did I claim that?
>
>
> > Right now the evidence for direct realism is deduced through converging
> > operations from many different fields of investigation.
>
> The "evidence" for the Language Acquisition Device was "deduced", too.
> How is any of this science? And what good is it anyway, looking for
> evidence for something that can only be postulated?
>
> Scientific models have to be built on hypotheses, which are falsifiable,
> not on postulates, which are not. It suffices for hypotheses to be
> falsifiable *in principle*: many very successful models are rooted in
> hypotheses (e.g. the existence of electrons) that cannot yet be falsified
> empirically due to technological limitations. But statements that cannot
> be falsified even in principle, such as, say, that electrical current can
> flow only in accordance with the divine will of members of the Greek
> pantheon, are not hypotheses and are not a useful part of scientific
> progress (except by virtue of their exposure as non-hypotheses, which of
> course is progress in almost anybody's book).
>
>
> -- Mark
>
> Mark P. Line
> Polymathix
> San Antonio, TX
>