In a message dated 10/11/2001 10:59:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
mcole@weber.ucsd.edu writes:
> Eric-- I do not recall ever using the notion of scientific brain function
> in anything I have written.
> mike
>
No Mike you certainly do not use the term scientific brain function and I
know that you have in the past been offended that cognitive psychologists may
be attempting a takeover of the social sciences by addressing psychological
functions as merely chemical reactions. Partially I used that phrase to get
a response and partially I was attempting to address the medical aspect of
psychological funtions. Is not medicine a human function? Are not medical
tools that which humans use to achieve the goal of their activity theory. I
purposefully left medicine off of my list to see if anybody else would
question why it was not included. Humans have chemical reactions as do all
animals. LSV uses the example that Engels uses of the ability of ants to
sense light waves that humans cannot sense. LSV is attempting to prove a
premise that realities exist beyond human perception. LSV accepts that
chemical reactions are present in humans (his acceptance of humans as being
an evolution of animal based reflexes supports this) and whether we label
them as such does not make them go away. I beleive spirit of activity is
more in line with the human purpose and function but that does not mean
humans are exempt from scientific (i.e. chemically based) brain fucntions.
That said, I was specifically referring to the experiment conducted that is
addressed in Psychology of Literacy. Where you and Scribner were attempting
to have the literate (those able to read and write) transcribe directions to
a game. Instead of using scientific functions to explain the game it appears
the Africans (forgive me I forget the name of the nation) used spontaneous
brain operations to explain it while the American college students used a
more preset scientific explanation. Regardless of whther an explanation was
scientific or spontaneous it still explained the main concept of the game.
Am I mistaken in my recollection or is this close to a representation of your
study? If this is not then please clarify where I have errored in my
conlcusions of this study.
Furthermore if the Scribner and Cole studies do not address the scientific v
spontaneous brain functions what studies have been conducted that address
this extremely important Vygotskyt theoretical concept?
I am fine with using CHAT as a generel science if it is willing to accept
some aspect of the medical model, is it?
Eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:42 PST