About this McCarthy-ism... - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: ....but not as wrong as Andrew McCarthy

Submitted by Psychologist Y, PhD, Sep 14, 2007 22:01

Sorry, couldn't help it.

First there's this comment, Dr. McCarthy:
The problem is psychology is not a true science. It is not a science as physics is or biology is. One can examine and study energy or cells via direct measurement. But psychology must always use words in place of activity.
don't except the
So biologists don't posit theories in "words" about things they can't measure directly? And a theoretical physicist counts the number of strings in a quantum particle (keeping it on the other side of the lab, of course, from the singularity) sitting on his or her lab table? And psychologists don't attempt to refute their theories by direct observation of behavior, brain activity, etc?

I realize that medicine is an applied rather than theoretical field, but come on, surely you had some exposure to philosophy of science, scientific method, etc. at point in college, right?

"Psychology" is a very broad field, and certainly there is work done by people calling themselves "psychologists" that doesn't fit the definition of science. But I think you'd be hard pressed to generally include Pinker in that group, or the thousands of other psychologists following in the 150 years of footsteps since Wilhelm Wundt. Pinker's peer-reviewed scholarly papers are certainly science. His popular press books, such as the one reviewed here, are much more examples of Pinker philosophizing about what impact his (and other) scientific findings may mean to this, that, and the other topic of popular interest. Much of this involves speculating in an untestable way, and as such isn't very scientific, but I think that's Pinker's intention.

These books are much more about surveying current findings and generating discussion than stating predictions in a testable, refutable way, or otherwise engaging in science per se. It seems to me that Pinker's trying to reach out across disciplines and to a non-academic audience to demonstrate the relevance of psychological science to current issues.

To write off Pinker by saying "...psychology is not a science" or that Pinker is trying to elevate his ideas as "metaphysical truth" is to both completely miss the point and fail to see the context in which Pinker's research actually exists within brain science. This is demonstrated in your comment concerning cognitive psychology that:

It is all a dream based upon binary rational construct which is based upon dichotomous thought as if humans can be at least two creatures at once, one rational and another irrational. But that is impossible but no one sees this.

Huh? Are you confusing binary representation of data with the ability of an individual to act rationally at times and irrationally at others? While much of cognitive psychology has historically viewed the human cognitive system as a Turing machine (I assume this is what you meant by "binary rational construct?"), this does not preclude irrationality by a long shot.

Currently, the Turing machine model is under fire (and by anyone's reckoning it comes up lacking in light of the past 50 years of research), and I imagine it will eventually be replaced by some sort of dynamical systems model as more evidence converges from neurophysiology and related fields. This may not even be a reductionist model. What won't change is the idea that "cognition" (whatever that is) is ultimately a physical process, and that, in fact, man IS measurable in words and numbers.

And, unless you're making an argument for a homunculus, or some other sort of supernatural process driving human action, you're stuck with this perspective as well. If you're arguing for a supernatural process, then Pinker is certainly not going to appeal to you. Neither will any other scientific perspective on human functioning.

So... to wrap it up... it really sounds (especially in light of comments such as they cannot dig down and pull cognition out of the brain) as if you adhere to a Descartes-type mind/body dualism, and reject the idea that thought is embodied. It's quite peculiar that you would take this position on one hand and use it to criticize Pinker, then on the other hand invoke the criticism that psychology is not a science.

And perhaps this is the real crux of the matter. Maybe it's not that Pinker ."..does not want us to go there for it is the place where the idea of cognition is lost." Maybe it's that McCarthy doesn't want to go there because it's the place where mind and body merge into one, and the supernatural is no longer needed.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment	By	Date
It has been about one year since we had our discussion on the 'mind'. And I suspect that Dr Y... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy	Sep 28, 2008 08:15
This is where 'facts' are really nonsense in disguise. If one has a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy	Nov 12, 2007 06:42
The confusion of any philosophical science that has no heart What I find so alarming is that our most learned, our... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 27, 2007 03:21
Pinker's postulations still resonates with the 'soft innatism' and "cast of basic concepts" of a Longinian (Longinus) prefiguration of thought.... [MORE]	obrian worrell	Sep 24, 2007 16:25
Latin is figurative speech, right? Well just look up any word of Latin or Greek origin and you will get... [MORE]	Jean-Philippe De Lasalle	Sep 19, 2007 21:07
I think what has me so dismayed by rational science in regards to human beings, as we want to practice... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 19, 2007 05:38
We have heard of Evolution as "survival of the fittest," but I understand that studies of chaos and emergence give... [MORE]	John House	Sep 21, 2007 00:08
Pinker's verbal brilliance has been obscured by his inadequate theory and frequent misrepresentation of facts. I demonstrated this in an article... [MORE]	Bruce I. Kodish	Sep 18, 2007 12:59
adding "ism's" to authors (darwinism's, dawkinism's, pinkerism's) is lazy, sloppy and silly, please refrain. these authors have stated empirically verifiable... [MORE]	michael farr	Sep 14, 2007 19:49
I very much doubt that steven Pinker is the cognitive sicentist of our time. first and foremost he is a... [MORE]	charles leighton	Sep 14, 2007 06:18
I once attended a public lecture by Steven Pinker at my university. The event was so popular that I had... [MORE]	W. Dean	Sep 13, 2007 20:29
--- "But has any serious thinker actually held this form of innatism? No; it's at best a heuristic for actual... [MORE]	p. bourges-waldegg	Sep 16, 2007 02:56
Pinker's "sensitivity to subtle semantic distinctions" echoes Anatole France's maxim that "truth lies in the nuances." Basically, this is the... [MORE]	William Hoffman, Ph.D.	Sep 13, 2007 15:39
I haven't read the book, but from what examples are given here of the "cast of basic concepts," it seems... [MORE]	Marc Andre Belanger	Sep 13, 2007 10:27
I apologize for saying cognitive psychology has no merit. I don't mean that. But it does have issues that those... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 13, 2007 07:34
A very gracious apology Dr McCarthy as well as several valid points that clarify your position. I agree completely with... [MORE]	Laurie	Sep 13, 2007 17:58
John Locke is an eighteenth-century philosopher by only a hair's breadth. Locke died in 1704; his most important works appeared... [MORE]	R. Franklin Carter	Sep 12, 2007 20:00
Logrolling much? But yeah, Pinker is probably more or less on the same level as Roughgarden, though maybe a little... [MORE]	Martin Browning	Sep 12, 2007 15:53
Pinker making diffenence between mind and brain, really speaking all our thinking ,feeling, sensation, language born from brain. We know... [MORE]	Ramesh Raghuvanshi	Sep 12, 2007 11:32
It may sound impressive to detail a fundamental relationship with language and mind but first one must determine what is... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 12, 2007 06:48
A bit difficult to make out what Dr. McCarthy is going on about...over 500 words to express what seems to... [MORE]	Kyle	Sep 12, 2007 12:03
"Man is not measurable in words or in numbers and that is where the whole idea of cognitve psychology fails.... [MORE]	Laurie	Sep 12, 2007 18:47
Sorry, couldn't help it. First there's this comment, Dr. McCarthy:The problem is psychology is not a true science. It is not...	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 14, 2007 22:01
I went to a university where psychology was in the school of Arts and Letters. I majored in psychology as... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 15, 2007 07:22
You are right in one aspect in that I did not clarify my thoughts in a more detailed way. Dr.... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 16, 2007 04:32
First, don't take the McCarthyism thing too seriously - it was just a play on "Pinkerism" via a reference to... [MORE]	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 16, 2007 22:35
Dear Dr Y, I think you agree with me at one level yet do not realize it. You believe that science... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 17, 2007 18:27
Perhaps we're just talking about different things here. First, I am not a clinical psychologist. Like Pinker, I am an... [MORE]	Psychologist Y, PhD	Sep 18, 2007 09:37
I understand that you are in experimental evolutionary psychology. And I understand that you believe that cognition, whatever on this... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 18, 2007 18:25
This is why I say that what you will try to do 'scientifically' in regards to the self is never... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 20, 2007 04:01
Well I've given the whole idea of the relation between the mind and reality some thought and this is part... [MORE]	Jean-Philippe de Lasalle	Sep 23, 2007 09:15
Remember to keep categories/fields straight and don't forget fundamentals. Mathematics is much more than idea. It gives one a sense... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Sep 30, 2007 22:58
I know what I have said here is a bit upsetting to psychologists/ neurologists, to physicists, to mathematicians, to biologists,... [MORE]	Andrew McCarthy MD	Oct 7, 2007 06:34
The reason Pinker is difficult to refute is because his ideas and evidence are those of a chameleon. He... [MORE]	esya	Nov 6, 2007 15:42
Jerry Fodor is a philosopher.Yiddish is inherently funny.Etc. [MORE]	Fitz	Sep 12, 2007 06:41

Reader comment on:The Edifice of Pinkerismin response to reader comment: ....but not as wrong as Andrew McCarthy

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: ....but not as wrong as Andrew McCarthy