At the place where I am, though, we have some excellent research psychologists (as they understand what that means in their own professional/disciplinary milleux) who are not prepared to think about the kinds of questions discussed here, and tend to be hesistant even about recognizing that there are such questions, or that they could be suitable for real scientific research. Exceptions, yes, ... but is he really a psychologist?
My real point here though _is_ more one of logic than of local anthropology. As a rough analogy, it's like saying that mathematical principles are mathematical. If chemical phenomena need to be consistent with mathematical possibilities, the mathematical principles are not contingent on the chemistry.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2011, Martin Packer wrote:
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:It's the difference between semio-logy (the logic of signs), and psych-ology (the logic of the psyche), where "formal logic" is the logic of formal propositions, syllogisms, conceptual intensions and extensions, etc.Tony, I think you're being a *little* harsh on psychologists (though we deserve blame for many things). But yes, I think the distinction is an important one. Can I suggest that in T&S, LSV was moving back and forth between the logic of consciousness and the logic of signs? Martin __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Tony Whitson
UD School of Education
NEWARK DE 19716
twhitson@udel.edu
_______________________________
"those who fail to reread
are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
-- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca