Perhaps it would be better if my name was a number - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: About this McCarthy-ism...

Submitted by Andrew McCarthy MD, Sep 15, 2007 07:22

I went to a university where psychology was in the school of Arts and Letters. I majored in psychology as well as premed. It was a wonderful learning experience. And since I was in the school of Arts and Letters I was able to live in two separate worlds wich really never intersected very much. And I think I learned something that most college students fly by so easily, that letters and arts are different than numbers and sciences. I then studied medicine and neurology. That too was an amazing experience. And one thing I think I learned correctly was this: The basics of neurology involve learning, at a fundamental level, that the phenomena of words and numbers are unique phenomena and are always in separate pathways. I have thus learned, perhaps wrongly, that my school was correct in keeping psychology within the field of Arts.

Dr Pinker and others probably went to schools where this was not done and thus no fundamental distinction was ever made. So my disagreement is not because of some kind of McCarthyism but a manner of fundamental classification. The whole idea that numbering, measuring, etc., and calling it the only true source of knowledge i.e.science, and making it the cause of everything including philosophy has never made sense to me. Perhaps it is because I am not smart. But fundamentals are very important to me. There is measurement which is one kind of thinking and involving areas in the brain that do measurement. And then there is an area of our brain that deals with letters and words. They have always been different phenomena to me and thus I cannot put my 'measuring' brain in control of my 'lettering' brain anymore than my 'hearing' brain has any connection to my 'seeing' brain. These are all separate phenomena.

And thus the whole idea of a philosophy of science does not make sense to me and perhaps I am very alone in this and perhaps very wrong. But to me the whole idea of numbers in charge of words does not make sense. This crosses areas that really cannot be crossed. And I am not the person that identified this. Socrates did this 2400 years ago in Plato's Euthyphro. I know how we all want to measure everything so who really reads all this old stuff anymore? Well fortunately or unfortunately I have had to as part of my basic college requirements in the school of Arts and Letters.

How about this as something we could really argue over in a meaningful way? I stated perhaps my case a bit too strongly in my first comment when I said man is immeasurable. I should have said that man has a part of him that may be immeasurable. And I think your point is this that such a thing is just so 'dark ages' especially with all our ongoing work going on that breaks us down into physical and biochemical components.

But again I go back to fundamentals. Our sciences depend upon the measurement of sensory phenomena and so much of our study of physics is a visual method of study. And we assume that everything we see either with the eye or with an instrument relies on this sensory phenonema. And it certainly does seem that everything we see can be accurately measured. And so I understand your wish to make me a kind of Joey Mac and spread all sorts of falsehoods. (By the way my father worked for 3 Democratic Presidents.)

But here is my problem and perhaps it is why the Irish have always been a pain in the arse. I have trouble with the notion that all visual phenomena are entirely measurable when perhaps most of (all of?) what we see or measure via visual measurement must come to grips with what it means when we find that underneath all these things we take for granted is a little thing called pi. And pi is immeasurable. This has been known for thousands of years and despite our great progress in science we have never come to grips with this. And that has bothered me for all my years in school. Now it doesn't seem to bother anyone else but shouldn't it bother all of those who believe in measurement as a philosophy of life?

Well enough said. If you can explain how the philosophy of science can understand pi in absolutely measurable terms (for that is your philosophy) well I will buy your whole department a pizza lunch...

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... [MORE]	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...	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: About this McCarthy-ism...

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: About this McCarthy-ism...