Brad Jesness has added an update
May 18,2022
Key advice to Understand my Views
See not only the 5 major papers on my Profile page, but also see: FINAL CLEAR ADHERANCES
Brad Jesness has added an update
May 16,2022
Analytic (analytical) philosophers COME on!!
Come ON!! And KNOW, to start: Ontology is just a thinker's way of IMPOSING his view(s) ON THE SUBJECT _MATTER. It is wrongful "conceptualizing" "within the 'box' ". This should not occur in science. Ontology has the science status of superstition. If you want to learn of and THEN study important vital [real] dynamic processes, find a way to DISCOVER THEM, firmly based in direct observation of overt behavior, and seen AS behavior PATTERNS -- because behavior itself _PER SE (aka "just behavior") is itself biological functioning (with its patterning, including PATTERNS WITHIN PATTERNS (and without finding THAT, you are lost)). There IS such a strictly observationally-founded way (indicated above and flushed out in my writings) to find REAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS and the proximate causes of them and the proximate causes in/OF ONTOGENY (SHIFTS in development : in humans, mainly child development periods/stages). I offer a clear way, IF analytic philosophers OR OTHERS would just take a very "close look", read all my writings and follow it all to its logical and sound end. See my writings, ALL available on ResearchGate. If you just listen to the professors (overly restricted and HEAPED in/steeped IN tradition and WRONG VIEW), you will only find dead ends (as "the behavior" is also seen as unrelated to much else). No professor in Psychology, in the past or present, has not been "tilted" and stilted to such a degree that empirical science (aka science) in Psychology will not be found. P.S. Interdisciplinary work VERY FREQUENTLY RESULTS IN USING A FICTITIOUS AND/OR WRONG unit-of-analysis. On the other favorite (or popular) thing, and apparent "crutch", for psychology: the field of neuroscience. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU "have" and ARE MATCHING WITH (or to) (i.e. the behavior PATTERNS), then there is a very, very limited amount one can learn from neuroscience. If philosophy cannot teach us that, then the ENTIRE DISCIPLINE OF PHILOSOPHY must be abandoned or begun again.