Brad Jesness has added an update
Apr 24,2018
To Know where I Stand, to get more of an idea of what I represent (generally, in the "abstract")
I posted basically this same set of paragraphs as an Answer in two threads. I thought anyone considering doing the Project (THIS Project) would benefit from knowing how I see my perspective and approach in a "philosophical"/philosophical and historical context. I am trying to indicate the importance of pointing up certain good principles/assumptions and contrasting them with bad positions AND, with that, indicating the way to supplying a solution for through-going falsifiability / verifiability (testing/verifying, minimally: the reliability of what is involved in each step of moving empirically to "look closer" and/or understand more). I seek verifying the understandability and agreed-upon justification of each assertion and demonstrating the agreed-upon AND similarly-seen nature of important phenomenon, and the relatedness of any new finding(s) to pertinent other findings (and to the required positions, e.g. assumptions, general principles) -- for each noteworthy individual observation in the studies undertaken. Here it is (if this seems obtuse or makes little sense, skip it and see the other Updates): I most often, nowadays, refer to philosophy with the word in quotes ("philosophy"); as I study more and more of it, and about it, it seems clear that "philosophy" (that of the historical, well-known philosophers) has no clear basis to define (or to get it defined) either in its boundaries or its nature. It often (typically) lacks what Popper emphasized as falsifiability , showing clear points open to test, basically BY OBSERVATION (not "experience"). Popper's "philosophy", ironically, has this same problem. The material below is to indicate MY approach's falsifiability (and complete testabiliy, and possible verifiability). Even though before imparting on developing my perspective/my approach, I had not read (or read about) many philosophers (mainly just Existentialists and the Buddha), now I have studied and read about some more and, indeed, I see "philosophy" (all of it failing to achieve Popper's falsifiability -- seemingly including Popper himself). As such, earlier and prevalent modern "philosophy" just does not "cut it". To Popper's position, I would add: having falsifiability AT EACH POINT (or "step") in the description AND USE of a position (and HOW to do this, "in science", AS science, which it IS inherently, when operating assumptions are justified, clear and procedures used are clear, and all is subject to test; science is not "special" -- or separate -- in any other way; this also opens up that which is amenable-to-science, leaving about nothing that is reasonable NOT subject to science). I did my work without citing or feeling a need to cite a single philosopher. Yet, my work is as much or more philosophy than anyone else's I am familiar with. The key to falsifiability at each "step" is: being clear about your grounding assumptions, which also direct all your efforts to "contain" your thoughts (these assumptions, themselves subject to falsification -- including the possibility of being shown true, of course). (This is the "containment" that makes one's approach and study "circumscribed", to the extent of giving it clear boundaries and a clear nature.) Anyway, with a clear grounding and foundation directing one's approach, one is leaving oneself accountable as one should. Beyond the concrete-orienting, beginning assumptions, there is just: other principles (e.g. of Biology, for behavioral science) which one may cite as necessarily applicable. Then, about all that is left is for one to question your methods proceeding with your actual studies -- GOOD, when they do demonstrably provide reasonable clarity for others to use them and they and their findings/results-seen, or consequences seen, provide replicability ( these basically being clearly, IN EFFECT (as best as we can, when we communicate at our best) the same as providing falsifiability). Other reasonable and accepted KNOWN, CLEAR, EXPLICIT principles also should apply to a theory: One is parsimony. An example in my theory/approach is I ask: "why do we need 'up-front' to posit or try to 'define' any sort of learning other than the clear, simple, known associative learning phenomenon, when there is no evidence of the necessity to do this and, otherwise (with my well-justified system), no reason to do this? " I would maintain that the description of my good system (and my system/theory as it is now) provides as much GOOD philosophy as you will find. (Yet, I, for good reason cite NO philosophers, but only blame the "philosophy" of old-time philosophers and prevalent philosophers, whose work immediately became part of behavioral 'science', and that IS, in the same way, THE MAJOR problem for behavior sciences today -- as they, those belief-laden views, are part of our culture.) My approach is a non-limiting, FULLY testible, approach, requiring ONLY adherence to all-ready accepted principles, the logically-necessary (made explicit), AND good believable assumptions which you see as at least worthy to try (and, when tried, will be proven the core of actual good description, as concrete as possible when "unfurled" in use (and tested at each turn)). The basic problem with Psychology today is that it can be undeniably shown to use "assumptions", NOT stated clearly or explicitly stated (or, in a sense, even KNOWN) AND using these assumptions un-questioningly without being clear they are being put to any test (which would allow falsification); basically these are near-automatic skews and biases, and that is all (allowing researchers to try to use ridiculous theories, that will NEVER have any direct evidence -- because the constraints of their poor assumptions). THESE common assumptions I address, which I refer to as pseuso-'assumptions' or simply as "beliefs" (because that is all they are), I see as they are: quite possibly FALSE or indeed false: false to biology (which is then false to behavior, because "behavior' (behavior patterns) IS biological functioning) and these "assumptions", are largely unexamined (because the perspectives are part of our culture, from old-time philosophy), and ungrounded, not well-founded at all, not clear or concrete, and in NO OTHER way justifiable (and not testable or tested). I HAVE ALTERNATE ASSUMPTIONS (often opposite assumptions) which are more likely even if just because they are consistent with biology, but also concrete (or "concretized"), and "out-in-the-open" with each use.
Brad Jesness has added an update
Apr 23,2018
To know a little more about what you will be looking at
Philosophy VS. Science (and philosophy-and-science) Here is a way to describe the/a core problem with philosophy: it is that the philosopher is content with what HE/SHE has been able to figure out, and with expressing that well enough that others can see his view and accept it (or so it seems to both "parties" -- and they no doubt feel that way). Good philosophy-and-science would provide a system to "take everyone along" in the building of the system in the first place (starting by just relying on a few most-likely-true basic assumptions and necessarily applicable principles -- e.g. of Biology, in my case -- to be agreed upon, or tried, at the outset). Then there is a way you can "take everyone along", point-by-point to for-sure build your system, THE system, and empirically demonstrate this is so, and THEN assuring people DO see the "same thing" in many noteworthy and important, understandable aspects (and for what more it may be good for). People will more fully understand the merit of the perspective AND this is ALLOWING FOR CONTINUED AND CONTINUING PROCESS of/toward more and more understanding. [ For what was described in the last paragraph AND THIS to be shown, and to show that this has indeed been accomplished requires showing replicability (ability [for others] to recreate or find some particular set of circumstances -- of the Subject and of the environment -- and show/see the same effects/sequences) OR show (minimally) inter-rater (inter-observer) reliability. NOTE: The latter often is much, much, much stronger evidence than any p<.05 . ] This is good SCIENCE, and is my science. And, as much as my "way" is a new cogent system for understanding (and it IS), it IS PHILOSOPHY, in the best possible sense (and only great sense): philosophy-and-science (no matter what the topic regarding human life is -- no dualisms of the system/assumptions or "of the mind"). [ My topic is for using the processes described above is human cognitive-development (ontogeny) (human cognitive-developmental ethology) -- a major "containing" aspect of the BIOLOGY OF BEHAVIOR. See THIS via the papers and BOOK listed below, the References] Any professional philosophers or high-level philosophy students of the "analytic persuasion" HERE (or reading this)? If so, take a "wack" at it.
Brad Jesness has added an update
Apr 21,2018
Statement of Needed Perspective, and the nature of my Proposals (see this Project's References)
Viewing all general, important, core behavior [patterns] (along with environmental aspects), this being the full content of good Psychology -- a psychology, being always clear in fact and in theory and in research, with all seen in terms of BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING. And to provide some specific testable hypotheses following from the needed NEW theory, a theory founded on good new biologically-consistent alternative assumptions -- a theory that provides that good perspective, and specifics. See this Project's References. (It also may be of quick use, for a summary, to view what is provided in my Project related to General Artificial Intelligence, AND see the rest of the Human Ethology (Ethogram) Project: Updates and Writings (References, there).)
Brad Jesness has added an update
Apr 21,2018
Eliciting and soliciting analytic philosophers to see if they can see the full SET of core problems I see with most psychology theory (including both major core assumptions and RELATED bad thinking) and with related perspectives, approaches, and research. Then, also, assess the merits and place of my proposals for assumptions and perspective, generating an essentially new but extremely appropriate type of psychology theory and associated research (including the specific testable hypotheses provided). In fact, this new approach can be readily seen as providing NECESSARY changes in psychology -- really treating core central behavior patterns (all important general species-specific and species-typical behavior [patterns]) AS DEFINITIVELY BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING -- which undeniably it must be. This new Project, is especially for those having Philosophy as a profession (or sought profession) and for philosophy graduate students : those seeking to be analytic philosophers -- working philosophers, actually striving to do some of the important work of/for others. Interests must include: psychology, good science of behavior (not so much of "mind"), biology (including behavioral aspects, e.g. human ethology, ethogram) AND human cognitive development (ontogeny). Plus you must like and be good to this author, minimally to the extent of being: understandably on-the-subject and positively (affirmatively) useful -- all in ways one likely will readily be able to see. If the "above" well-describes you, no need to "apply", just apply yourselves. Thanks.