We are not talking about different things - Reader comments at The New York Sun

Recent Blog Posts

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: We're talking about different things here

Submitted by Andrew McCarthy MD, Sep 18, 2007 18:25

I understand that you are in experimental evolutionary psychology. And I understand that you believe that cognition, whatever on this earth that really is, is only an embodiment within the brain. And you tell me that you are not a philosopher. And then you tell me that because I am a clinician and you are a researcher dealing with scientific experiments we are dealing with separate things. Then you tell me that because I have to deal with the world as it is crazily made to be, you will 'allow' me to consider a mind-body dualism but not because it is the truth but because perhaps it helps me deal with the sufferings that the forces of cognitive evolution cause.

'Why not throw the poor misguided doc a bone if it helps him sleep at night? Perhaps we higher thinking beings must accept a little duality in order to well keep the masses and those that must care for them from all becoming entirely irrational and ruin the whole system we want to create.'

And finally you reject any responsibility for what your little ideas may cause the world. It is probably what Georg Hegel would have said when he saw that both the crazy right with Hitler and the crazy left with Karl Marx develop their political theories from much of what he taught. (See William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Chapter 4)

And I sense a new found wish that perhaps you had not opened up this whole can of worms. But it now is wide open and I am willing to take each worm out and go through each and everyone of them. Why? Because we are not talking about different things here. We are trying to decide what fundamentals in this life are a guide for our actions. And that includes all arts and all sciences. It includes trying to know what we can precisely know and what we cannot know precisely. It means knowing what science is and what it is not. It means understanding that everything we do in life must have some philosophical choice and that such a choice is probably the most important action that any of us can ever make. It means trying to understand what logic means and what logic can never understand if there are things that are simply not left to the narrowness of logical thinking.

I am willing to spend time on these issues- for you, for me, for everyone. It means we should argue and disagree as much as we have to. But at the same time we must be willing to give up every preconceived notion that you hold about me as well as yourself. I have already done this and it took me quite a long time, and perhaps I still am not there yet. So here is my first thought that you have gotten wrong about me. I do not believe in Cartesian dualism for it was this step that got us into this blasted mess in the first place, at least as I see it.

I am sorry for my anger that comes across these pages but I am running out of time. I am 50 years old and I have seen my world that I once saw as wonderful fall madly apart. And I would do everything in my power to stop that from happening any more than it has. We have terrorism running rampant. We have our sick and elderly being sent into nursing homes without adequate supervision. We now have our own crazy right and mad left running our politics. But I remember a day when I was young and it was not like this. My generation has lost its meanings and has descended into angry groups that try to separate themselves from each other just as you try to tell me that what we are doing are different things. Yes they may be different but in the end do they make us a better human and a better community? Or do they do the opposite?

I would like to take a journey with as many people who are interested. It is a journey of great importance. It is a journey of what is and what is not. What can we measure? What can we define? What does that mean in regards to reality? We need to reexamine what it means when we think time is measurable when it just may be immeasurable? What do our genes really have to do with consciousness? What is rationality and how far can it really take us? Is this not what life is about? And I would do this with everyone out there if you are willing to listen. But alas who wants to listen? But here is my warning. As my time is running out so is all of yours. We are in this mess together and thus it will take all of us to figure our way out. I will throw out the first topic and may you all do a little research. What makes a nerve cell different from all other cells?

I would love to hear all of your opinions for it is something I have been thinking about lately...

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... [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...	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: We're talking about different things here

Other reader comments on this article

Comment on The Edifice of Pinkerism

Reader comment on:
The Edifice of Pinkerism
in response to reader comment: We're talking about different things here