Fundamentals of Psychology - Lecture Notes
Fundamentals of Psychology - Lecture Notes
Prehistory
No deciphered written sources from this era. Ancient Egypt was for a long time part of prehistory.
Now we know, so now it’s gone from prehistory to history.
The beginning of language: important for science. Started in eastern Africa. 50.000 years ago. 40.000
years ago: cultural explosion, then also images. Image. Started to use words. Then writing.
Independently of each other in China, Europe, America. Stone of Rosetta brought Ancient Egypt into
history. Contained three translations/languages: Egyption, hierogliefen and another one.
Then numbers. Now thoughts and relations not only in images and words, but also in relation
between numbers.
What do all these inventions share with each other? They all use science to depict meaning.
Man discovers representation, in which things are denoted with symbols and relations between
things are represented with relations between symbols.
In this period of time, with language a representation can be brought from one head to another.
With writing, representations can be brought into someone’s head without the other being
physically present.
It becomes possible to have shared representations: ideas can easily spread and can also be
sustained over generations.
Religion becomes possible! You can believe the same thing. And money: shared belief of the value
of the coins. And also: complex social structures.
Forward in time: still very important in philosophy. When you have representations, it suddenly
stands out that some of these are “correct” and others are not. We thus get the concept of “truth”.
The question of what it is that makes some representations true and others false is a central issue in
philosophy. This part of philosophy concerns “theories of truth”.
The meaning of representations is a guiding theme in the philosophy from Plato to Wittgenstein. The
fact that your thoughts “relate to something” (they are focused on the world, they are “about
something”) later became known by Brentano as intentionally. A puzzling phenomenon that is not
well-understood. This part of philosophy concerns “theories of meaning”.
Social developments
Through the discovery of agriculture, man can stay in one place and thus establish settlements. And
produce more food than is needed to feed everyone, so not everyone has to constantly arrange food.
There is a possibility of creating a community in which different people fulfil different roles. A
hierarchy typically emerges, in which higher ranked individuals have time (to come together and talk
about it)
Greek antiquity
Classical antiquity
The birth of systematic research in Greece. Now we go into Europe, we don’t leave Europe a lot in
this course. This is because we can’t cover everything, so this choice was made.
Man encounters key questions in philosophy: what’s the world like? (ontology), how do we know
what’s true? (epistemology), what makes some things beautiful and others ugly? (aesthetics) & what
makes some deeds good and some bad? (ethics)
focus on ontology & epistemology, but others are also important questions in science.
Before and after Socrates: thinkers can be distinguished by this.
From the presocrats, we only have smaller pieces of text.
Heraclitus.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Socrates didn’t write anything down, but he is often mentioned in the
works of others. That’s how we know his work.
Philosophy after Aristotle: the stoics, the Epicureans, the skeptics.
Plato = founder of rationalism
Aristotle = founder of empiricism
Socrates’ father was a sculpture. He asked people questions. Just got into philosophy. For him, it
wasn’t so much of having a certain philosophy, but for people to find their ignorance. Find the point
when people couldn’t answer his questions anymore. Downside to this?
Heraclitus (535-475 B.C.)
Heraclitus (“the Obscure”) doubts whether something ever stays the same. “No man ever steps in
the same river twice.” The only constant is change itself. This principle is known as Panta Rhei
(“everything flows”).
This idea had a big influence. Panta Rhei. We will see this back later. William James (psychologist)
saw the mind as something that flows.
Now much of science relies on invariance-principles: e.g. all electrons are interchangeable. But how
about psychology? Can you think the same thing twice? Are there psychological invariances? Are
people interchangeable like electrons? Thought = physical state of brain, then you probably cannot
have the same thought twice. But you can learn the same thought again (for instance when you have
brain damage).
Plato’s rationalism: what do we see here? A circle. Round. No end. Symmetrical. No corners/infinite
amount. Same distance from middle everywhere. Where did we get this knowledge? Did we see al
kinds of circles, and did we make sure this is a fact? But all objects that are circularly shaped don’t
actually have these properties.
Real knowledge cannot come from observation: after all, we only see imperfect form. Yet we can
“see” perfect forms in our mind. If that idea of a circle doesn’t come from perception, where does it
come from? “idea” and “idee” come from eidos which means form or image.
Plato’s answer: we “remember” these ideas from our divine origin. Knowledge is recognized and
therefore we know it must be true. Our mind is born out of the world of forms, which is a
transcendent world where the perfect forms are. Plato believed in reincarnation, used this to explain
our knowledge of perfect forms… for real knowledge should not turn to empiricism: you should
remember what you already know.
Plato’s cave. Metaphor for how a philosopher can get access to true forms. People are prisoners in a
cave. We can only see the wall in front of us. Behind us: fire. People walk with objects there. Fire
throws a shadow on the wall in front of us. All we see in our lives are shades. Make up words to
describe them. Words for the shadows. Prisoner sent free blinded by light. Then you start to
recognize the things you’ve seen. In the true world. Then come back to cave. Rough. That’s what
philosophers do.
Nativism is still relevant today. Psychological research suggests that very young children can reason
causally and that babies are surprised when natural laws are violated. Moreover, according to many,
language ability is innate. Contemporary nativism is not rooted in reincarnation but in the evolution
of the brain.
Empiricism
Central thesis: knowledge lies in observation
This is now the common sense view: if you want to know what’s going on, you have to observe.
Associated thesis: if all knowledge comes from experience, there is no need for innate knowledge.
Aristotle
Aristotle is seen as the founding father of empiricism. He was the first to think systematically about
how to gain knowledge from observations.
Rationalist: self-evident axioms cannot be rejected by observations.
But, these axioms are acquired through experience, they are not innate or shown to us before birth.
Aristotle rejects Plato’s two-worlds theory: there is only one world and that one we can observe.
Everything around us consists of form and matter. Matter only has potentiality, no actuality.
The forms are not just something in our heads but are the essence of being.
Peripatetic principle
Aristotle walked around while teaching his lyceum: peripateo in Greek. That’s why Thomas Aquinas
called the empirical principle the peripatetic principle. “Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in
the senses”. Later also known as the tabula rasa theory: the mind is an unwritten tablet (blank slate)
at birth.
We will see the Tabula rasa more often in this course. John Locke became famous with it. John
Watson based his behaviourism on this idea. But also today, the nature-nurture debate still plays a
role in e.g. individual differences in intelligence. So Aristotle’s idea is definitely not dated yet!
Hellenistic period
Popular schools get a strong psychological-practical component:
- Stoicism: is it best to minimize your feelings
- Epicureanism: happiness is the ultimate pursuit, which you achieve by living your life as
balanced as possible
- Skepticism: refrain from judgement
The Romans
Slowly taking over. Ethical views spread easily. Took over culture.
Romans made the inventions of Greeks bigger. They won territory in land, Greeks won territory in
philosophy; their views spread.
Summary
Some of the greatest inventions stem from prehistoric times (language, numbers, representations)
The development of agriculture has made it possible for elites to be exempted from working the land
The Greeks start wondering where knowledge comes from
Rationalism and empiricism are first elementary answers to this question
But it will be many hundreds of years before humans invent the Great Knowledge Machine; The
Scientific Method
Galileo Galileï (1564-1642) took Copernicus’ work seriously. He writes a book in Italian in which he
defends the theory. Takes down all objections. Most books were written in Latin, special that this was
written in a “popular” language. Told the story in three characters. With thought experiments and
story. Not very tactical: the foolish figure in the book, Simplicio, represents the view of the church…
In the end, quotes of the pope into the Simplicio figure. Simplicio also refers to simple mind in Italian.
Quite offensive for Church. But still, church didn’t break with him.
Why don’t we feel it? Galileo’s ship. Relativity of motion. In a boat, you don’t notice any effects of
boat moving or standing still, so long as the motion is uniform/constant speed. You don’t experience
movement because it’s relative to something. In the boat, it’s not relative to something. Drop
something from mast on boat, seems like it goes straight down. Actually, you’re giving it motion.
Galileo disproves counter-arguments to Copernican theory. Inspiration for relativity theory of
Einstein. He did experiments and described movement of falling objects. the mathematical
description as a parabola was inspiration for Newton.
Very proud of this, but gets overconfident maybe. “I have been twice as good a philosopher as those
others because they,…” also says that others have been lying about their experiments.
Back in time
Compare Galileo to Aristotle, who rejected the experiment. Recognizing the value of experiment is a
big step forward. Galileo is credited with the insight that artificial conditions provide insight in the
natural world. An important theme in psychology: see e.g. discussions on ecological validity.
Galileo learns that Christiaan Huygens has built a telescope. He manages to get a building and build
one within a week! Galileo will be the first man to point a telescope at the sky.
Galileo observes that Venus has phases and thus must orbit the sun!
Jupiter has moons! Was also found, so Earth isn’t the only planet that has moons.
And also: there are mountains on the moon. Aristotle tries to show that other celestrial bodies are
different from earth… Wrong! Moon isn’t just a flat, smooth disc. Darker spots were explained by the
fact that not all places on the moon shine as bright of a light. This showed that Aristotle also made
mistakes: maybe not everything had been learned!
The shadow of Aristotle
In the Middle Ages, after his rediscovery, Aristotle was almost sacred: it was believed that he had
everything right. According to Brysbaert & Rastle, Galileo’s observation that there are mountains on
the moon was extremely important, mostly because it showed that Aristotle was fallible. Galileo
shows that there’s still a lot of news to discover, a tremendous shock for the medievalist!
Better visibility!
The idea that you see something better with an instrument than with your eyes is revolutionary and
viewed with suspicion. Cesare Cremonini, professor in Aristotelian philosophy at the University of
Padua, didn’t want to look through the telescope: “I do not wish to approve of claims about which I
do not have any knowledge, and about things I have not seen… And then to observe through those
glasses gives me a headache. Enough! I do not want to hear anything more about this”
Galileo’s response
He thought people were just stupid: “My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable
stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principle philosophers of this
academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an ass and do not want to look at either the
planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the
opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the ass stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut
their eyes to the light of truth!”
Kepler (1571-1630) has access to enormous amounts of measurements on the orbits of planets. He
discovers that planets describe ellipses instead of circles. This suddenly makes the heliocentric model
much simpler than the Ptolemaic model. the first great triumph of the new science: the earth
revolves around the sun!
Conflict with the pope
Pope Urbanus hears about Galileo’s heresy. He puts Galileo under house arrest. This is where the
break occurs between science and church. Galileo dies in 1642 as a prisoner. Exactly 350 years later,
in 1992, Johannes Paulus II admits that Galileo was right…
Galileo did two fundamentally different things: he described things in mathematic formulas
(parabolas) and he started doing experiments. What he didn’t do: articulate what the scientific
method is, what are the rules on how to do science? That has been attributed to Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon and the scientific method
Francis Bacon (1561-1626). What’s a science’s secret recipe? Francis Bacon articulates for the first
time the scientific method as a combination of observation and reasoning. This starts with a
psychological insight: Bacon sees that human psychology interferes with finding the truth. We
ourselves are in the way of gaining knowledge.
Categorizing fallacies, errors we make in perception and our understanding of the world. Use a
scientific method rather than our own perception.
- Idols of the tribe: fallacies that all humans commit, and that are inherent to human nature.
We all tend to make typical human mistakes (visual illusion). These are idols that all humans
suffer from. Seeing order and regularity where it is not. Seeking confirmation and ignoring
refutations of what you believe; e.g. sailors who value the power of their prayers highly.
Fast forward in time
In the 20th century, Bacon’s biases are partly rediscovered and studied by psychologists: illusory
correlations & confirmation bias. So actually, Bacon brings psychology into scientific thinking.
- Idols of the cave: fallacies we commit because we belong to a certain culture, have certain
interests and habits (and are not the same for all people). Things you don’t actually believe
because you have a lot of evidence for it but rather because many people around you believe
it. E.g. “men are smarter than women”, or prejudices in education.
- Idols of the marketplace: fallacies we commit because we can talk about things. The ill and
unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding. For example, some words
don’t refer to anything, such as “witch”. But, language treats such nouns as if they do refer to
existing things. This can sometimes lead us to mistakenly think that these things are existing.
Important for psychology: children’s stories. Jip & Janneke and the calender. Rip off all January pages.
Mom says: but now it’s February, dad’s birthday is in January, now it can’t be dad’s birthday
anymore. Reification.
Fast Forward in time
Reification is an important problem in thinking about psychological concepts. Res = thinking, facere =
to make sure. We tend to assume that nouns (‘intelligence’, ‘depression’) refer to something that
really exists. As a result, we easily assign all kinds of properties: if something exists, it must exist
somewhere, so psychological properties are in the head. This can be very problematic. Searching for
disorders in the brain
- Idols of the Theatre: fallacies we commit because we believe what authorities say. Bacon
gives the example of old philosophical schools like those of Aristotle and Plato. Bacon
criticizes the Ancient Greeks without holding back.
Aristotle a true empiricist? Francis Bacon was very critical of him. “For he didn’t consult experience,
as he should have done, on the way to his decisions and first principles; rather, he first decided what
his position would be, and then brought in experience, twisting it to his views and making it captive.”
Bacon accuses Aristotle of selecting those observations that support his theories. Many of Aristotle’s
theory do not seem to be based on observations. Aristotle doesn’t use observations to test theories.
Fast forward in time
Bacon’s ideas remain highly relevant. Again and again, sensible people give in to the “idols”. Science
relies on admitting the human deficit, not denying it. Science has basically institutionalized Bacon’s
distrust.
Examples of institutionalized distrust: experiment, statistical tests, peer review, replication studies.
Show me! That was a coincidence! An expert would easily prove you wrong! That wouldn’t work a
second time!
Much of the methods that we learn, deal with these fallacies.
Bacon’s new method: Novum Organum
Bacon argues that we should overcome prejudices (“idols”) by following a methodology. This
methodology is normative: the researcher must adhere to certain rules of the game. Essentially, the
Novum Organum is the first real methodology book.
Newton as an anchor
Isaac Newton (1643-1727) brings the scientific approach to physics to perfection. He integrates the
insights of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and others into one great theory. This theory is “exact”: it is
written almost entirely in the language of mathematics: this is new and makes a big impression.
The Principia Mathematica marks the second big triumph in science. With simple principles (“laws”),
Newton explains an enormously rich spectrum of phenomena. The planets turn out to follow the
same laws as tennis balls. Never before has such a powerful theory of nature been put forward.
Fast forward in time
Newton set the ultimate example for many researchers. Much of what comes after is response to his
work. Immanuel Kant, whom we will encounter in ch3, is investigating the possibility of Newtonian
psychology. Still some psychologists measure up to the Principia. This sometimes leads to so-called
physics envy.
Summary
The scientific revolution has completely transformed our view of nature. Our present society is built
on its fruits. Francis Bacon sees that our psychological constitution stand sin the way of gaining
knowledge and he is the first to articulate the scientific method. Newton’s Principia is the crowning
glory of the work and is an anchor point for “what science is”: can psychology do the same?
Rationalism?
Descartes, like Plato, views reason rather than experience as the primary source of secure
knowledge. Descartes is therefore a rationalist. This will be soil for the return of empiricism.
After Descartes: the pendulum swings back again…
The British Empiricists: the return of the Tabula Rasa
The British Empiricists:
- John Locke (1632-1704)
- George Berkeley (1685-1753)
- David Hume (1711-1776)
They believe that knowledge enters us through the senses, so through perception.
John Locke (1632-1704): he finds rationalism, with its theories of innate ideas, unacceptable. He tries
to refute rationalism with psychological observations. Rationalists often rely on universal moral
principles. Again, Locke tries to refute this theory with psychological observations: we don’t find
these ‘universal’ principles in children and fools. In different cultures you see different moral
principles. Locke thinks that all knowledge is obtained through experience. This was before research
of e.g. Frans de Waal.
He says: Tabula Rasa (blank slate). “Let us then supposte the mind to be, as we say, white paper…”
Hume’s induction problem is a threat for all kinds of knowledge. After all, almost all science and
philosophy is based on generalization. Laws are nothing more than habits in which we came to see
necessity. If general laws and causal relationships cannot be proven, then nothing is certain
anymore…
The mind is immaterial, no mathematical description, humans are not animals: ideas that have to
change, otherwise no scientific psychology. These things have to change; they all do in the next
century.
Cognitive psychology: it turns out man can be described mathematically!
Franciscus Donders (NL) decides to determine the duration of mental processes. Deducted the time
needed for a task with only repetition from a task with repetition and discrimination. The result is an
estimate how long the mental process of discrimination takes. Mental chronometry thus provides a
mathematical description of mental processes! But why didn’t anyone come up with that before?
Because they didn’t have the equipment: clocks weren’t good enough. The first stopwatch was
invented in 1816.
Fast Forward in time
Donders’ idea is the basis for the study of mental processes through reaction time tasks. See, for
example, studies of decision making, but also attitudes (implicit association tests). Much of the
mathematical modelling of these processes has been developed at the UvA and in Leuven!
Hooke (1674) used this figure to determine the limits of human visual acuity. Not only time, but also
other things quantified: perception. And also: Gustav Fechner (1801-1887): Fechner’s Law: stimulus
intensity against sensation units. Discriminate between two weights, when they are close to each
other in weight this is more difficult. The heavier the weights, the larger the difference before it’s
noticed: notable difference. Because of Fechner’s Law.
Statistics: humans are stochastic
The Belgian astronomer and sociologist, Adophe Quetelet (1796-1874) has the idea of applying
statistics to people. He introduces the science of “l’homme Moyenne”: the average human. Even
when individuals cannot be lawfully described, the average can! This also results in quantitative
sociology.
Francis Galton (1822-1911): nephew of Darwin, predict study success from father’s intelligence, for
instance. Was interested in the heritability of traits.
Humans as realizations of stochastic processes: humans are noisy. Introducing correlation and
regression analyses to ideal with that noise. Regression enables behavioural genetics. Does your
brother’s intelligence predict your intelligence better than your cousin’s does? A new, systematic
and quantitative approach to psychology.
Kant’s challenge: applying statistics to psychology appeared to be a great success. Kant had
underestimated the potential of describing humans mathematically.
Evolution theory: Man as Animal
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) dethrones man as king of the animal kingdom. Suggests an explanation
for the origin of species based on evolution with two simple principles: accidental mutation &
natural selection. consequence: evolution is a completely blind and fully automatic system, driven by
a statistical principle. The consequences of this idea are enormous: man loses its special status
compared to animals, human and animal behaviour are related, a very important part of the
question “who are we?” suddenly turns out to fall within the scope of science. Darwin obviously
encountered resistance, but the rapid acceptance of his ideas is actually more surprising.
The idea that man is some kind of animal leads to a new way of looking at man. If there is
evolutionary pressure, then good behaviour provides evolutionary advantage. This means that the
explanation of human and animal behaviour can rest on the same explanatory principle.
Evolutionary psychology is currently a separate field of research. Research along the lines of
functional psychological modules that re adaptive (e.g. the “cheater detection” module). We can do
Wason’s card task when it gives us an advantage. Leda Cosmides (1957-) is a leading evolutionary
psychologist.
Last one: the mind is immaterial.
Summary
Psychology comes into existence in a turbulent time in which the image of man is tilting in all kinds of
ways.
Psychology becomes an independent discipline (no longer part of philosophy) and becomes an
empirical science, initially based on introspection.
Psychology is given shape: Freud, Binet, James, and Wundt all still have a detectable influence on
psychology
There are some schools, but no dominant paradigm. Yet. This is being developed in the US, where
Thorndike, because he couldn’t use children as test subject, started studying chickens…
Noam Chomsky (1928-). Language capability requires mastery of a grammar. Grammar cannot be
learned purely inductively with S-R associations. Grammar is generative (you can produce an infinite
number of sentences and recognize them as correct, even if you’ve never seen them before). So,
grammar is actually a theory that cannot be derived from the data available to the child. This later
became known as the Poverty of the Stimulus argument. Knowledge of grammar must therefore be
innate.
Argues that behaviourism falls short:
- It is very unclear what the “stimuli” and “responses” are: this is a metaphor rather than a
theory
- Skinner is limited to behaviour, but language requires intentions: whether something is a
question or command cannot be derived from behaviours or responses of the environment
alone
- There is no scheme based on reinforcement and punishment that is put together with
“meticulous care”: children learn language spontaneously
Back in Time
Chomsky says: the ability to acquire language is innate. Posits the Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
So Chomsky is a modern nativist. Like Plato and Descartes, he doesn’t believe that everything is
learned through experience. Chomsky explains the innate system by an evolutionary change in
humans. Although the system seems very complex, it’s probably something simple. But we can’t omit
this system from the explanation of language just because it seems so complex.
Linguistics should let go of the assumption that the meaning of language can be found in the
observable outside world. Instead, the meaning of a word is a mental concept: it’s in our head.
Example: continuity, rationalism. I have an idea of this willow, and that’s what the word refers to.
Not the actual willow outside. Grow an identical one; do we see it as the same? No, we know it’s
different. Children story: something turns into something else, and then turns back. Children easily
understand that there is continuity in the character. So we have the concept.
Fast Forward in Time
The LAD is quite controversial: there is no “language organ” in the brain so how does that work? And
how ‘poor’ are the stimuli that children get? They hear thousands of language expressions a day.
Recent research with neural networks suggests that certain aspects of grammar can be learned
inductively.
Summary
Behaviourism briefly satisfied the need for an objective, hard science.
However, falls short in the analysis of complex behaviour; specifically language
What is important is that the downfall of behaviourism is primarily scientific in nature: there are good
arguments against it.
Also important; behaviourism is in many ways also a winner.
Can the analogy of the mind as a computer program really keep the brain at distance ?
Summary
Brain science went through stormy technological developments in the 19 th and 20th centuries.
19th century: microscope, ablation & stimulation
20th century: breakthroughs in visualization methods, electrophysiology and neurochemistry.
Important insights into cellular functioning and functional localization. Formal modeling.
Dualism
René Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes views the body, but not the mind, as a machine. Mind and body must therefore be
different entities. Descartes’ reasoning produces the mind-body problem. However, the idea that the
mind is a causal director of the body gets ever more problematic.
Descartes believed that sensory information was transferred to the mind through the pineal gland.
Mental misery…
Causal effects of the mind are obscure. Interaction problem: how can a non-material entity cause
physical events? Causal closure problem: if every physical event has a physical cause, where does the
mind enter? How about the law of conservation of energy? Brain damage problem: why would a
nonmaterial entity react to brain damage?
Nowadays, no theory can afford to be inconsistent with established scientific theory without
answering for it.
The teleportation test: do we even understand the idea of an immaterial mind? Where is it when
you’re asleep? Or suppose you’re teleported to the moon - does your mind travel with you or not?
And what if your Earthly body accidentally fails to be destroyed - are there then two you’s?
Thinking about mind and body as separate entities looks easy. However, as soon as we ask the
question ‘how would that work?’ it turns out we don’t really have a decent answer. The inability to
provide a reasonable theory of mind-body interaction has led to demise of dualism in scientific
articles.
Materialism
The materialist maintains that, in the end, there is only matter. The concept of ‘matter’ is however
quite flexible (so fields, states, processes, functions, etc. all count as ‘material’). Most important is
that the mind, whatever it may be, is a part of nature and observes the laws of nature. This still
leaves many possibilities for exactly what the mind is.
The problem of consciousness
The materialist doesn’t have an easy life either. Without a mind, it’s hard to explain how and why we
have conscious mental states. Three problem areas:
o Mental states (or not)
o Reductionism (or not)
o Subjective experience (or not)
Mental states:
In daily life, mental states (‘to want ice cream’, ‘knowing where they sell ice cream’) explain
behaviour (‘buying ice cream’). This is called belief-desire psychology and is part of folk psychology -
but also of scientific psychology. This kind of explanation surfaces throughout psychology (social,
clinical, development…). The theory of planned behaviour from Ajzen.
How can mental states receive a respectable place in scientific explanation of human behaviour? If
the mind does not exist as a distinct substance, then how can mental states exist at all? Or is it all just
spooky stuff, and is the only good mental state an eliminated mental state?
o Eliminative materialism
One option is to deny the existence of mental states: eliminative materialism. Mental states aren’t
real and will not appear in the ‘ultimate description of the universe’. Folk psychology is just like naïve
physics: in the end it will disappear. The philosophical couple Paul & Patricia Churchland are
eliminative materialists. It just takes some getting used to.
Eliminative materialism is a bridge too far for most scientists. Mental states appear too important for
the explanation of behaviour to dismiss them. It is also unclear what should take the place of
ordinary ‘belief-desire’ explanations of behaviour - neuroscience that can do this is currently science
fiction. Elimination seems premature; throwing out an explanation before you have a new one.
Because right now, we don’t have a right measure to be able to explain mental states etc. through
imaging techniques.
How do psychological states relate to brain states then? Two most important routes; non-reductive
& reductive materialism.
o Reductive materialism
Materialism with mental states. Non-eliminative materialism. One can deny that the mind exists as a
substance, but still make room for mental states. To do this, one must produce an account of how
mental states are rooted in brain states. Identity theory and functionalism are related attempts to do
this.
Identity theory
Maintains that mental states are brain states. To want an ice cream = brain state X. Identity theory
was developed to keep a causal role for mental states (not to deny it). ‘John bought an ice cream
because he wanted one’ is true, but really means ‘John bought an ice cream because he had brain
state X’. Mental state is the brain state, it isn’t produced by the brain state. They are the same. Very
strong position. Very nice, very strong, very clear. Sharp. But also difficult. Two different types of
identity.
- Type-type identity. But… what is identical to what? Strong answer: types of mental states are
identical to types of brain states across individuals and time points. This implies a one-to-one
mapping of mental states to brain states. If this holds true, then a full reduction of
psychology to neuroscience is a realistic possibility. A reductionist isn’t necessarily the same
as a materialist. Not all materialists are reductionists.
Reductionism
Step 1: start with a scientific law in the higher order science (the science to be reduced, e.g.
psychology).
Step 2: establish bridge laws: one-to-one correspondence relations between terms in the higher
order science and terms in the lower order science (the reducing science, e.g. neuroscience).
Step 3: show that the higher order law follows from laws of the reducing science given the bridge
laws.
The most famous reduction in the history of science is the reduction of the ideal gas laws to statistical
mechanics through the bridge law ‘temperature = mean kinetic energy’. Very powerful, but very rare.
Most researchers think type-identity theory is too strong: neural plasticity implies that the same
mental functions can be performed in different ways. Individual differences in physical makeup
suggest that brains may be quite heterogeneous, especially at the fine grained level of patterns of
neural connections. Mental states are often defined by their contents, and that content is very likely
to be encoded in many different ways.
The teleportation test: suppose your mental states are your brain states. Can you have the same
thought twice? And what about teleportation: your replica has a different brain, so are its brain
states different? That would mean you can’t really be teleported at all… the destruction of your body
on earth is murder!
o Non-reductive materialism
Also with mental states, but non-reductionist. Functionalism and the computer metaphor. The mind
can run on different brains. If that’s the case, different computers can run the same software with
different hardware. Define things through their role: function.
Functionalism
Functionalism defines mental states in terms of their role. For instance: realizing input-output
relations. Fear of spiders = whatever state causes people to avoid spiders, to say they are afraid of
spiders, etc. In this view, fear of spiders is not caused by the brain, but realized in the brain.
Multiple realizability: computational level = John gives Jane 10 euros. Implementation level = 10 coins
of 1 euro, 1 bank note of 10 euros, wire transfer, credit-card,… Same goes for the brain: scared of
mice because they carry diseases / because you believe they’ll rule the world. Different brain activity.
Idea of things being defined to their function isn’t that strange at all, because we see it with money
as well. Maybe not so strange that it goes for the brain as well.
Realization versus causation.
Money is one of the best examples of multiple realization. A ten euro bill is a ten euro bill because
you can buy certain things with it, not because of what it’s made of. So it plays a certain role in our
social, psychological and economic system. However, whether it’s made of paper or of iron doesn’t
matter. Important: the ten euro bill is not caused by the paper, because it does not exist
independently of that paper. Instead, the paper realizes the ten euro bill. Functionalists think that
mental states exist in precisely this way. Just like money, they are defined in terms of their role, and
realized in the brain. If you want to learn how Windows works, you don’t have to understand the
chips etc. in your computer.
Identity theory, version II: token-token identify
Type-type identity is killed by multiple realizability. No longer a 1-to-1 mapping of brain states to
mental states. But a many-to-1 mapping of brain states to mental states. But… what if ‘to want an
ice cream’ = ‘brain state x for John’, brain state y for Jane, brain state z for Jerry, etc… Then we do
have identity of brain states with mental states. This is called token identity theory.
Jerry Fodor (1935-2017) introduced the concept of multiple realizability.
Token-token identity blocks reductionism. This is because we cannot construct bridge laws. Just like
the concept of the ten euro bill does not map to a particular physical kind of thing… Hence the laws
of psychology cannot be reduced to the laws of biology or physics.
There are no laws in psychology. But relations or something.
Functionalism
For functionalists, psychological explanations are genuine and that’s where the buck stops.
Reductionism is structurally impossible. Identity theory is tenable in its token-token form. This type
of materialism is called non-reductive: mental states ultimately are brain states, but the
correspondence between mental and brain sates is not of the right kind (one-to-one) to support
reductionism.
The teleportation test: functionalism is consistent with the “naïve” concept of teleportation. When
your body is rebuilt at its destination, all relevant input-output connections are restored. So the
rebuilt person really is you, including all of your mental states. If you fail to destroy the one on earth:
there is two you’s, fully functioning, conscious Danny’s. they would become different as they have
different experiences. Goes well with our intuition, which a lot of people see as evidence for token-
token identity theory.
Dualism, revamped: or, should we become dualists again?
Non-reductive materialism doesn’t really have scientific teeth. “ultimately, mental states are brain
states” is an untestable claim without a mapping between the two. Perhaps we can think of other
creative ways of constructing mind and brain. In complex systems, higher order properties emerge
out of lower order processes. Emergence does not plausibly connect to substance dualism. However,
one could say it connects to ‘property dualism’. This is the thesis that even though there may not be
an autonomous mental substance, there are autonomous mental properties. Perhaps they could
even exert causal power back into the brain.
The fluidity of water is an emergent property.
Property dualism: (‘mental and physical terms identify different properties’)
Cognitive closure
Philosopher Colin McGinn suggests the cognitive closure hypothesis. A dog can’t learn the
Pythagorean theorem either. Maybe the problem of consciousness is just too difficult for us?
Conclusion
- Still no one really understands how the mind relates to the body
- Subjective experience is a complete mystery
- The demand for free will puts these things on edge
- Lots of questions, few answers, but very interesting!
- And who knows, we might witness a breakthrough!
Lecture 9:
Logical positivism and theory-ladenness
Analyzing science: philosophy of science
What is the foundation of knowledge? What is science?
Vienna, start of 20th century… a lot of art, etc. Where the story starts. People are not aware yet of
what will happen (first and second World War). Ludwig Wittgenstein, in class together with Hitler.
Also played a big role in his life. Three of his grandparents were Jewish. Twelve exceptions for
arrestations. He was one of them. Maybe because he was in class with Hitler? More probably
because he was one of the richest families of the world.
Logical positivism
In the 1920s, a discussion group was set up in Vienna to base philosophy on science and logic. This
Wiener Kreis (Vienna Circle) consists of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. Wittgenstein’s
tractatus has enormous impact on this reading group. With Wittgenstein in their hands, they are
plotting an attack on the traditional “vague” philosophy (metaphysics).
The victims: mathematicians. Does this remind you of something? This was exactly what Vienna
Circle people hated. Fed up with people making your field look bad. Reminds you of behaviourism.
The attackers: logical positivists.
The weapon: meaning.
The mind was the last thing to ‘leave’ philosophy. Now philosophy: language should be clarified
according to natural sciences. Clear problems given to natural science. Logical positivists also see this
as their role. “I shall mean by ‘linguistic philosophy’ the view that philosophical problems that may be
solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we
presently use” - Richard Rorty.
That which remains after the languages has been clarified and stripped of meaningless claims,
becomes the subject of natural science.
Wittgenstein returns
After years of self-chosen isolation, Wittgenstein returns to Cambridge. He starts a complete new
theory of meaning. Meaning arises in language games. The way we use language creates meaning.
Completely opposing the ‘received view’ of the logical positivists.
Logical positivism is crumbling down: it is too strict, criterion so strict that it couldn’t survive. Still
had a big influence (just like behaviourism). But as a normative criterion for what does and doesn’t
count as science, logical positivism is gone.
And so:
There are no sense data. Everything is subject to interpretation. There are always multiple possible
interpretations. There is no certainty in the observation. End of logical positivism.
Summary
With Wittgenstein in hand, the logical positivists open up a new area of philosophy: the philosophy of
science.
They try to demarcate meaningful statements based on the verification criterion: statements that
cannot be verified are meaningless. Science should only consider verifiable statements.
Verification criterion does not work because:
- Theory and observation cannot be strictly separated
- Statements about infinite sets, causality, and unobservable entities are not verifiable but
clearly meaningful.
The verification criterion thus describes half of science as meaningless chitchat.
Are the rationalists better in providing a good analysis of science?
Epistemological anarchism
Feyerabend writes the book Against Method. He denies the existence of methodological guidelines
ensuring progress in science. It is essential for scientific progress that anything is permitted:
“anything goes”. Sudden discoveries can justify something that was already assumed. Example:
tower argument.
Essential to science to not be limited to rules! Galileo; did he follow rules? No; so we shouldn’t.
Tower argument: argument against Copernicus; if the world is moving fast, and you drop something
from a tower, you would expect it to land next to the tower but it doesn’t! So Copernicus’ theory is
falsified. But only because Galileo was stubborn and keep trying to show Copernicus was right. Then
eventually found why tower argument was false. We don’t need these rules. Otherwise Copernicus
would have been falsified.
Summary
Popper formulates the falsification criterion
Avoids the induction problem and solves the demarcation problem better than logical positivists
Problems for falsification lie in the Quine-Duhem thesis and that falsification provides a poor
description of scientific practice
Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions imply shifts in meaning: successive theories are concerned
with something different
Feyerabend argues that strict norms are in the way of scientific progress, it is essential for scientific
progress that “anything goes”
Lakatos formulates the nuanced falsificationism to save the rationality in science and brings back a
normative component in his descriptive analysis.
Lecture 12:
Criticasters, alternatives, and the future
Quantitative versus qualitative approaches
Where does psychology belong? Natural sciences vs. humanities.
Some say: psychology is confused. They think they belong to the natural sciences, but psychology
actually fits better within humanities. Should do more with qualitative, interpretive methods. Why is
psychology not interested in literature, art, politics, and ideology?
The big question (again): do humans fill within or outside the scope of (natural) science?
I. The quantitative paradigm
We measure things: intelligence, depression, etc. Very deterministic. A lot of discussion whether the
things we measure in psychology is even a measurement. Laws that have to be fulfilled to deal with
something quantitative (which is necessary for measurement). Measurement plays a central role in
psychology now.
To measure is to know?
Mainstream psychology is characterized by: controlled experiments, measurement procedures and
measurement models & the use of statistics to analyze data.
Tendency of objectifying: avoid subjective reports. As objective as possible.
“The quantitative approach”.
Quantitative imperative: the conviction that you cannot know what you cannot measure. Ignore
certain things, just because they’re not measurable.
Measurement is a loaded term.
Complementary?
As a method, qualitative research can be seen as complementary to quantitative research.
Generates theories, from general laws to applied cases. Well studied for quickly mapping out
complex situations. Often different methods are combined, such as a focus group and a
questionnaire.
Recognizable?
A characteristic of qualitative research is that participants find the data recognizable. As a result, the
participant have a real say in the processing of the data. If they don’t recognize themselves in the
data, something’s wrong. This does not apply to the interpretation of the data. This is completely
different from quantitative research. Participants should recognize themselves in the data, but not
necessarily in the analyses of the data.
III. Relativize
Considered in relation or in proportion to something else. Kuhn’s idea that we’re all going to different
goals. We’re not all going to the same point.
Qualitative research as a paradigm
Rather than viewing qualitative research as a different method, you can also view it as a different
paradigm. Quantitative and qualitative are not “complementary”. They aim for something
fundamentally different.
Maracek fights misconceptions about qualitative research:
1. Qualitative and quantitative provide the same kind of understanding
2. Qualitative research is a first exploration
3. Qualitative research is purely inductive.
4. Qualitative research is the same as quantitative psychology but without numbers
Article: Dancing through minefields: towards a qualitative stance in psychology.
Qualitative research (as a paradigm) is not bound to the same methodological criteria as quantitative
research. The researcher’s contribution to interpreting the data is its strengths. The research does
not need to be replicable. Objectivity is not the goal, there is not ‘truth’, reality is a construction. So,
methodological criteria that are based on the idea of an underlying existing truth, miss the point!
Can the qualitative paradigm keep the methodology police at bay?
Qualitative research is quite big in other research: anthropology, social studies. Not just a few
people, it’s a big paradigm, just something we don’t really do in psychology. In psychology, it’s very
small, almost non-existing. There have been movements that wanted more of that paradigm in
psychology:
- Hermeneutics
The traditional quantitative approach is unsuitable for grasping the richness of the mind and the
experience of human beings. Science is defined by its methods rather than by its content.
Methodologism: emphasis on following g methods at the expense of other types of considerations.
Quantitative approach explains, hermeneutics tries to understand.
Only sticking to the rules, ignoring all kinds of considerations (political, e.g.).
- Understanding versus explaining
The phenomenological perspective is an extension of the qualitative approach. Phenomenology is a
20th century movement that tried to develop an interpretive methodology. Focus on intentionality,
conscious and qualia instead of behaviour. Verstehen vs. Erklären. In the Netherlands, there is a
strong school of phenomenology in Utrecht until the 1970s.
The fundamental task of psychology is not to explain human behaviour. It is to understand people’s
actions and their motives. So it is not about action potentials and cognitive processes. It is about
motives and intentions. Not the behaviour itself, but its meaning, should be at the center of the
research.
Is science independent of the reality it studies?
The results of psychological research constructs a new reality, social constructivism: knowledge is a
social construction. Science transforms reality. One acts according to their view of reality: “if men
define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”- Thomas & Thomas.
A constructed reality
Kenneth Gergen argues that psychology transforms reality instead of passively describing it.
Examples: obedience and authority, the bystanders effect. So it’s also hard to say if knowledge is
cumulative. Consequence: theories should not be judged on truth but on the ability to generate new
openings for action. How can we transform social life in such a way that the consequences are
desirable?
These aren’t people who think that scientific psychology contains nonsense. These are movements
that deny both the possibility and the necessity of striving for objectivity and truth. So in that sense
really a different paradigm: different goals, different methods, different norms and values! Kenneth
Gergen believes that psychology should let go of the ideal of objectivity.
Is social constructivism limited to humanities? Latour: “Give me a laboratory and I will raise the
world”. Pasteur, anthrax and microbes: “Scientific facts are like trains”.
Science and technology studies: studies how society and politics shape science and technology, and
vice versa.
His reasoning: you’re rehearsing, doing it over and over again, until you get it right. Then taking
knowledge outside: show that it works outside the lab. Becoming a fact is a procedure: describe
problem, people will see it as solution. Important moment: extend laboratory. Laying out the tracks.
Vaccination can work only on the one farm. Standardize all sorts of things on the farm so it stays the
same as in the laboratory, but not too much so people won’t recognize it as being taken outside of
the lab. Still clever and important, but not a miracle. …
Constructivism comes with a responsibility. We can’t hide behind “revealing the truth” as researcher
you contribute to what is true. What questions are you asking? Which categories do you consider
relevant? Political motive as well. Asking question = building knowledge.
What is truth?
Science constructs reality + Some say that the work of Kuhn and others shows that science is
irrational = Objectivity and truth are not feasible.
Theories are stories about how the world works
In this respect, scientific theories are in essence not different from other stories
The constant tension between hard and soft approaches to studying humans
V. The science wars
Alan Sokal. Pofessor of Physics at New York University. Worked on quantum mechanics. Has become
famous outside of his field because of the fuss surrounding his article “Transgessing the boundaries:
towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (1996), Social Text.
Prestigious, post-modernist journal. He used modern physics to show that reality is not objective.
Sokal writes in an article that physics itself shows that there is no objective reality. Writes about
quantum mechanics, theory of relativity and quantum gravity. Uses quantum gravity to show that
everything is relative and context-dependent. It follows from physics itself that there is no absolute
truth!
Quotes: “Physical reality, no less than social reality, is at bottom a social and linguistic construct”.
“Not only the obsberver, but the very concept of geometry, becomes relational and unclear”.
“Quantum gravity informs us that space and time themselves are contextual, their meaning defined
only relative to the mode of observation”. Political argument.
We must have a liberating postmodern science, independent of objective truth. What used to be only
the domain of humanities now crosses the border and enters natural sciences. Political conclusions
from modern physics…
But… it was a hoax! He had a very different intention. Sokals true intention was quite another..
Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies, publish an article liberally salted with
nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions? The
answer is ‘yes’, Sokal’s parody was accepted for publicated.
He put in quotes that were absurd to him. Sokal confesses: ‘the article consists of falsities and
syntactically correct sentences that mean nothing at all’. Moreover, the article presents speculative
theories as accepted science. Sokal turns out to be a scientist who believes that there is an external
world, that there are objective truths, and that his job as a scientist is to discover these truths”.
Political motive. Why did Sokal do this? “Deny that non-context-dependent assertions can be true,
and you don’t just throw out quantum mechanics and molecular biology: you also throw out the nazi
gas chambers, the American enslavement of Africans, an the fact that today in NY it’s raining… Facts
do matter, and some facts matter a great deal”. He brings in moral considerations.
Sokal shows the political consequences of a relativist view. So this is not a purely epistemological
consideration, but a political one. It is important to have absolute truths.
Another hoax
In 2017-2018, Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian write 20 fake articles. They send
these articles to journals in the field of gender studies, queer studies and critical race studies. 7
articles are accepted for publication. Example; “Human reactions to rape culture and queer
performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Oregon”.
Criticisms on this hoax:
- There is a thin line between hoax and fraud
- This probably could have happened in other disciplines as well, giving similar results.. (at
least that is not tested)
- Naïve about how the academic system works: peer review is not to expose fraud or
fabrications
You cannot expect from peer reviewers to identity fraud and fabrication of results.
Science war?
Latour: came back. “Nothing that happened during the 90s deserves the name ‘war’. It was a dispute,
caused by social scientists studying how science is done and being critical of this process’.
But now: “We’re in totally different situation now. We are indeed at war. This war is run by a mix of
big corporations and some scientists who deny climate change. They have strong interest in the issue
and a large influence on the population”
Now we really have a problem, because people distrust science. Now help regain trust in science.