Re: [xmca] Psychology and formalization

The reference to mathematics undergoing the same process science (say,
physics) has traversed recently is fascinating. Thanks, David.

Jorge

Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns
Profesor Asociado y Director
Departamento de Psicología
Universidad de los Andes
jlarream@uniandes.edu.co

On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:59 PM, David H Kirshner wrote:

>> The question is however that at times formalization seems not only
>> a useful heuristic strategy, but also a form of coding of
>> theoretical sentences and propositions that stands in and of itself
>> as an ideal, as a goal related to the kinds of explanations (e.g.,
>> deductive) that are desirable.
>
> Undoubtedly there's a progression involved from logical
> systematization to formal exposition. Interestingly, it took
> mathematics, itself, thousands of years to make this jump, with
> algebra progressing from a Rhetorical phase (in which results were
> stated in convoluted natural language) to a Syncopated phase in
> which some symbolic elements were thrown into natural language
> constructions, to a fully Formal phase, established only in the 16th
> or 17th century.
>
> David
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:39 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Psychology and formalization
>
> David
> I tend to agree with you in that certain epistemological grounds
> (e.g., foundational constructs, assumptions about domains of
> application) of the disciplines seem to be more consistent than others
> with the aim of formalization. As Mike said, formalizations (either
> mathematical or otherwise) are no doubt useful as representations upon
> which one can operate and engage in inference (denotation and
> operation in standard modeling theory). The question is however that
> at times formalization seems not only a useful heuristic strategy, but
> also a form of coding of theoretical sentences and propositions that
> stands in and of itself as an ideal, as a goal related to the kinds of
> explanations (e.g., deductive) that are desirable. The changing nature
> of the unit of analysis in cultural analysis is a good reason not to
> be to prone to formalization. Discourse and explanations as
> interpretation seem to be another one. Just passing thoughts.
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns
> Profesor Asociado y Director
> Departamento de Psicología
> Universidad de los Andes
> jlarream@uniandes.edu.co
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>
>> Jorge,
>>> From my perspective there seem to be two types of theoretical
>>> enterprises in psychology. Some theories like behaviorism and
>>> cognitive science tend to adopt well defined units of analysis
>>> which means the theoretical foundations can be formulated within a
>>> closed set of constructs. The trajectory of such theoretical
>>> enterprises tends to be outward from a relatively restricted domain
>>> of application to broader psychological concerns (often without
>>> success). Other theories like sociocultural theory and situated
>>> cognition theory opt for a more complex, dialectically framed unit
>>> of analysis. These theories tend to easily encompass the broad
>>> concerns of the field, but struggle to settle on a particular,
>>> agreed upon set of foundational elements. Both of these approaches
>>> are legitimate scholarly enterprises, but only the theories with
>>> stable foundational constructs seems to be subject to formalization
>>> or mathematization.
>> David Kirshner
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Jorge Fernando Larreamendy
>> Joerns
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:36 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [xmca] Psychology and formalization
>>
>> Hi, all,
>> I've been reading these days some of Edward Tolman's work trying to
>> trace some points of departure that preceded the cognitive
>> revolution.
>> It's a fascinating work. One of the most striking features of
>> Tolman's
>> prose is Tolman's attempt to phrase theories in a formal manner,
>> either logical or mathematical, and attempt that is strengthened by
>> the molecular kind of concepts and phenomenic distinctions he draws.
>> Certainly, formalization is, as Baudrillard suggested, concurrent to
>> attempts to mathematize reality, to model it, a cornerstone of modern
>> science. And psychology is full of examples, some of them successful,
>> some of them failed, from Hull's learning theory to Estes' notions of
>> statistical learning, from John Anderson's production systems to
>> recent theorization on causal learning as a Bayesian net or
>> development as a dynamic system. What's the take of cultural
>> psychology on formalizing phenomena? That is, beyond the use of mere
>> pictorial representations or the use of statistics on aggregate data.
>> It seems to me that it's even an interesting issue with regard to
>> Vygotsky, who certainly had the intellectual means and the
>> mathematical and logical resources to have taken that road.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jorge Larreamendy
>>
>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns
>> Profesor Asociado y Director
>> Departamento de Psicología
>> Universidad de los Andes
>> jlarream
>> @uniandes.edu.co_______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Jul 22 14:11 PDT 2008