[Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder

Carol Macdonald carolmacdon@gmail.com
Mon Sep 22 00:27:42 PDT 2014 

Dear Andy

I haven't kept up with the previous 15 conversations, but need to add my
tuppence worth.  I believe that God created the world, but not anything
literal   about the Bible.  We need to know what triggered the  Big Bang.
Even Richard Dawkins the professed atheist is agnostic about this very
point.  Also it seems that the order of creation, although allegorical,
seems to map out the order of events, although Biblically we really have to
give "day" a different time frame.

I just say this in case this example can be accommodated in your theory.

Carol

On 22 September 2014 08:58, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andy,
>
> Taking project as the KEY concept and stating that projects are shared
> collective desires to change *concepts* is highlighted in your example.
> The *intended* project is to change people's understanding of asbestos as a
> miracle substance to a deadly substance.
>
> Returning to the article Peter posted on *perspectival* assumptions as
> being collective and developing the concept of *perspective* away from its
> subjective bias to taking *perspectival* as collective could be understood
> as a *project* [writing articles to change others concepts of
> *perspectival*
>
> I sense an *overlap* and possible synergy between notions of *changing
> concepts* intentionally AND realizing changing perspectives by *looking*
> with an intentional focus.
> Are we referring to similar phenomena??
> The inherent stability of concepts/perspectives and the intentional
> projects to change the *shape* of harmful perspectives/concepts.
> Is there a bias to see perspectives AS images and concepts AS linguistic?
> Is this the question of multi-modality [recently shared on line]??
>
> I appreciated the clarity of the example of asbestos workers who shared an
> understanding of asbestos [as a miracle substance that was actually
> deadly]
>
> The relations between perspective taking, interpretive understanding,  and
> concept development is the question I'm left with.
> Larry
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Michael, Charles.
> > This is an issue which I think can be tackled by Activity Theory, not
> just
> > climate denial, but a whole range of belief/disbelief problems like this.
> > Social justice issues and social change in general depend on
> understanding
> > and solving these kind of prejudice and scepticism. Postmodern relativism
> > has given us a poisoned chalice indeed.
> >
> > I believe that Activity Theory is well placed to solve this category of
> > problem and give some guidance as to how to tackle deeply held but
> > irrational prejudice. Developed using 'project' as the unit of analysis I
> > think Activity Theory gives us a really useful theory of ideology which
> has
> > the advantage of being firmly connected to a living tradition in
> > psychological science and meaningfully connected to how people live their
> > lives.
> > Taking Creationism as an example, among European and American societies,
> > the USA boasts the largest percentage of people in the world who believe
> > that God created the world just as it is today about 10,000 years ago.
> They
> > are rivalled only by Turkey. And it does not correlate with lack of
> > education. In fact, among Republican voters, the more educated you are
> the
> > more likely you are to believe in the Old Testament story of Genesis and
> > not Darwin. A significant percentage of Democrat voters also believe in
> > Creationism, but this declines with education.
> >
> > The point is that when people evaluate evidence, as Charles was
> > suggesting, we do so by integrating the new data into our existing
> > conceptual frame. I regularly dismiss all sorts of news and theories
> > because it doesn't fit into my conceptual frame! We all do. The reason
> why
> > there is so much Creationism in the US is that Darwin versus the Old
> > Testament has been *politicised*. You prefer the Old Testament for
> guidance
> > as to the origin of species rather than science (personal experience can
> > shed no light on the question) because it is a litmus test for adherence
> to
> > the Good Life, just as some people hate bicycle-riders because it is a
> > signal of support for Greeny ideas which are deemed hostile to the
> ordinary
> > person. I believe that Climate Denial is part of the same issue. In
> > Australia there are rather too many Climate Deniers because the issue has
> > become politicised. Officially the conservative government accepts the
> > science, but every knows they don't and this is reflected in policies
> like
> > appointing climate deniers to head committees to review energy policy,
> > repealing the carbon price, etc., etc. There are a higher percentage of
> > climate deniers in Australia, as a result, than in Europe where the
> climate
> > is not politicised in that way.
> >
> > One's conceptual frame is unified through commitment to a life-project.
> > Opinions and evidence which don't fit the conceptual frame generated by
> the
> > central concept of a life-project, its vision of the Good Life. There is
> a
> > 10 minute talk on this in relation to denial of the dangers posed to
> health
> > by asbestos here: https://www.academia.edu/8179060/Activity_as_Project_
> > The_Case_of_Asbestos
> >
> > Apologies for going on too long.
> > Andy
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Andy Blunden*
> > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Bazerman wrote:
> >
> >> Michael,
> >> I am with you, and not only because of climate change deniers.  The
> >> sociocultural critique has been important to show that humans make
> >> knowledge, and they do it from their own interests and perspectives.
> Yet,
> >> various disciplines and sciences, have come to know more about the
> world in
> >> ways that are less entangled with the limits of individual or small
> group
> >> perceptions and interests.
> >> Disciplines do represent the world outside of themselves, gathering
> >> data--of course selectively through their own devices, their means of
> >> collection, forms of inscription and display, etc...  Historically, the
> >> methodological standards in different fields have evolved to include
> more
> >> awareness of the contingency, fragility, and specificity of samples,
> data
> >> and analysis--along with increasing cleverness of our tools.   This is
> what
> >> methodology is all about.  I tend to view objectivity not as an
> absolute,
> >> but an awareness of ways in which we are entangled with the phenomena we
> >> are trying to study, and to find ways to disentangle ourselves less.
> >> So from this perspective, incorporating the sociocultural critique
> >> creates challenges to maintain the persuasiveness of our data,
> >> representation, and analysis. Over the last few decades, we have been
> >> struggling in different disciplines to incorporate this critique but yet
> >> maintain the disciplinary projects of advancing contingent, but useful
> and
> >> reliable knowledge.  I like your term warranted assertability. I myself
> >> have relied on the idea of accountability--in terms of being able to
> give a
> >> good account of your research actions when queried from various
> directions.
> >> But it is important to the advance of knowledge that we find ways to
> gather
> >> and understand information about the world (in which we are both living
> >> parts and the constructors of knowledge about that world including
> >> ourselves) that recognizes the contingency of our knowledge but does not
> >> evaporate our confidence in that knowledge into a vapor of contingency
> only.
> >>
> >> I have struggled with this issue for many years in my work on the
> >> rhetoric of science and have discussed it in various ways, drawing on
> the
> >> work of many others (Ludwik Fleck still seems important to me over many
> >> years), but more work needs to be done to crystallize an understanding
> that
> >> leaves science and social science standing despite it being created by
> >> poor, frail, interested, humans of limited and skewed vision.
> >> best,
> >> Chuck
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Glassman, Michael" <glassman.13@osu.edu>
> >> Date: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:21 am
> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> It seems to me that articles like this can be a double edged sword.
> >>> They use examples where culture has an influence on how we see things
> but
> >>> then offer the generalization that science is perspective.  This is the
> >>> same line you hear by climate deniers who claim that the climatologists
> >>> have a liberal bias.   Science is based on individual perspective
> until it
> >>> doesn't.   I'm their book is a much more nuanced discussion.   This is
> a
> >>> really complex issue which at this particular moment has extraordinary
> >>> import.  Maybe we need to find other ways to discuss this - like
> warranted
> >>> assertability.  Perhaps I have been spending too much time reading
> about
> >>> the politics of climate change lately and it has spooked me.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> ]
> >>> on behalf of David Preiss [daviddpreiss@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:41 PM
> >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >>>
> >>> And they make claims for all humankind.
> >>>
> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 22:16, Martin John Packer
> >>>>
> >>> <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> So there are two distinct problems here: First, the researchers are
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> not diverse. Second, the people they (we?) study are not diverse.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sep 21, 2014, at 8:11 PM, David Preiss <daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Loved the WEIRD acronym. One of the best ironies I've seen in
> >>>>>
> >>>> recent scientific writing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 18:57, Rod Parker-Rees
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> <R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk> escribió:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Great article, David - highlights the importance (at every level)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> of being aware of what others might find odd about us (secondary
> >>> socialisation?).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Rod
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Preiss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Sent: 21 September 2014 18:31
> >>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: in the eye of the beholder
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This article is revelant for this topic: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~
> >>>>>> henrich/pdfs/WeirdPeople.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 13:42, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> escribió:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The book by Medin and Bang, "Who's asking" published by MIT is
> GREAT
> >>>>>>> reading. Seeing this in Scientific American is super.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 8:18 AM, David Preiss <
> >>>>>>> daviddpreiss@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What a fantastic piece Peter! Loved the references to primatology.
> >>>>>>>> David
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> El 21-09-2014, a las 7:31, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
> >>>>>>>>> escribió:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-
> >>>>>>>> affects-how-s
> >>>>>>>> cience-is-done/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Development and Evolution are both ... "processes of construction
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> and
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> re- construction in which heterogeneous resources are
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> contingently but
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> more or less reliably reassembled for each life cycle." [Oyama,
> >>>>>>> Griffiths, and Gray, 2001]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> ________________________________
> >>>>>> [
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This email and any files with it are confidential and intended
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you
> >>> are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use
> of
> >>> the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not
> rely on
> >>> it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know
> >>> immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not
> >>> necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University
> accepts
> >>> no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan
> emails
> >>> and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept
> responsibility
> >>> for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its
> >>> attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless
> accompanied
> >>> by an official order form.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Carol A  Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
Developmental psycholinguist
Academic, Researcher,  and Editor
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa

More information about the xmca-l mailing list