We're talking about different things here - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: This is where we are going...

Submitted by Psychologist Y, PhD, Sep 18, 2007 09:37

Perhaps we're just talking about different things here. First, I am not a clinical psychologist. Like Pinker, I am an experimentalist. Clinical psychology is an applied field with applied rather than theoretical problems, and while it attempts to inform its practice with science, much like medicine (although I think its fair to say to a much greater extent) it draws from non-science when science doesn't provide workable solutions.

I think perhaps you find yourself in a similar position. The fact is we just don't know enough about cognitive functioning at the present time to offer much in the way of real guidance to a physician dealing with the practical problem of interacting with his or her patients in the most humane and comforting way possible. Further, we may never know enough - I'm willing to concede that this may be an issue science can't answer. Even if we are one day able to model a human cognitive system perfectly, it doesn't necessarily mean we will have gained a phenomenological understanding of that system.

I am not a physician, and have never been in the position of trying to help patients in the traumatic and extremely difficult situations that you perhaps have to deal with every day. I can only imagine how difficult it would be. Science offers nothing in the way of emotional comfort when it doesn't offer a physical solution, and this leaves the physician in a very difficult and frustrating position when he has nothing left in his medical bag of tricks yet still has compassion and caring for his patients (at least I think that's how I would see it if I were a physician). If a perspective of mind/body dualism helps you and your patients cope with these situations I think you are completely justified in maintaining it. You are facing a completely different set of circumstances than I am (or Pinker is), and when science doesn't provide answers for the problems you face you have no choice but to look elsewhere.

But the progress of science (and by extension the availability of better medical solutions to deal with the problems you face) depends upon researchers like myself adhering to it its principles. So for me mind/body dualism has given up its usefulness.

The point I want to disagree with is the idea you seem to imply that we shouldn't investigate or consider issues of "mind" from a scientific perspective because of what we may find, or the political and social ramifications of this perspective. I agree that society will have to evolve and modify its mythology to incorporate embodied cognition. But I disagree completely that it will necessarily lead to some sort of dehumanization of anyone. I just don't see the logic connecting the two. I completely reject the idea that "good will" towards others is somehow dependent upon a belief in mind/body dualism. I also reject the idea that we must give up any notions of "free will" without it. Finally, your point that WWI (or any other war) can be laid at the feet of "rationality" (whatever that means), and that this somehow arises from a scientific perspective on human action, is just misguided. I have no trouble believing that the purveyors of war can and have justified their actions with most anything - reason, religion, oil, water, jealousy, whatever.

However, I am not a philosopher, and these are philosophical questions. There are others who spend their time addressing these very issues, and are much better at it than I am, so I'll leave it to them to argue my point. John Searle is a good place to start: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/articles.html.

My final point, and the place where you and I may just never agree, is that we can't reject science because we fear what we might find. Currently, science indicates that cognition is embodied. If you have some scientific rationale to dispute this statement I haven't heard it. Claiming that the dehumanization of brain damaged individuals, world wars, and other calamities are the inevitable result of this view is not a scientific refutation of it (nor is it, in my opinion, a philosophically defensible position).

God didn't strike us down and civilization didn't fall apart when we decided to accept the scientific view that the earth revolves around the sun, or when we decided it was OK to view biological agents as the cause of disease rather than demons, spirits, or the will of God. Society adapted. The same will happen with embodied cognition.

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... [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...	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: This is where we are going...

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: This is where we are going...