To: <s-acc@yahoogroups.com>
From: "Andrew Phelps" <starfish@northcoast.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:43:07 -0800
Subject: Re: [s-acc] Re: cognitive error
Jln:
I'm really pleased to have this conversation with you. It's a "happy mix" of common interest and different experiential base.
Jln wrote:
The question for me is, Can we use Bacon's approach to science to move beyond the limits of Descartes' view of cognition? Since Bacon's philosophy of science is based on a still more limited view of cognition, the answer may be no. However, since we are interpreting Bacon today, much would depend on what approach we take.
Over and over, this question has been asked. It remains that the person who did the best work on the matter was in the generation AFTER Descartes, was Giambattista Vico. I will continue to nudge you, as you're in the same part of the world as the
Vico Institute. We have S-ACC representation from DeKalb County, GA (such as from the Georgia Advocacy Office, such as one member who was born there); I do suggest you go visit.The scientific method, first and foremost, is a way of arriving at new truths by testing one's assumptions. A fuller view of the facts is more scientific, not less, especially if those facts can be organized into research.
That is not as clear as Bacon's formulation. He also describes the role of MADNESS, of the kind of "illusions" that are typical when this kind of rationalizing of reality doesn't authentically 'work'.
"2 + 2 = 4" is OK for "My dear Watson" but it's not a deep enough analytic for inductive reasoning.
More importantly, clinicians who test their assumptions against their patients' results are less likely to mistreat their patients, especially if they reject stigma as the first step in the process. I believe that a "science of mind" that takes a fuller view of cognition could accomplish that.
I remember watching Lakoff interact with Goffman on a personal basis. It seemed to me
very tentative.This is especially true if we apply the concept of "personal responsibility" in both directions, the real purpose of this list. As long as clinicians see their own perceptions as legitimate and their patients' perceptions as correctable misconceptions, accountability will run in only one direction.
That speaks directly to the "clinical gaze" as the organizing dynamism for "treatment" type interactions.
Conversely, if clinicians see their perceptions as testable hypotheses and the patients' perceptions as facts, accountability will run in the other direction.
Spare me, until the lines of "accountability" are WAY MORE DEVELOPED. The Trieste psychiatrist described it thus: "We ask, 'what is your life project'?" What you suggest is the core of a good idea, but it takes decades of work to make practical. I'm collaborating today with
Psynergy, Inc. some in Morgan Hill, CA (south of San Jose) which follows this model. It takes a lot of organizing to handle the social responsibility required!Ultimately, the dichotomy between clinicians and patients may disappear, in favor of providers and customers – or peers.
I've applied to do a workshop at the
Boston PsySR Conference July 15-17, "Toward a More Socially Responsible Psychology." You have described the general topical area fairly well. The organizer said, "Present on 'abuse in the mental health system'" and I declined; working on this "dichotomy" requires more sensitivity than adamance. Two others on this list have also agreed to be panelists with me; I trust that will work out.
Andrew Phelps