Does assuming the likelihood of cognitive stages make the empirical foundation of psychology (ontogeny) easier? [ And, stages/levels of cognition ARE NOT based on anything UNLIKELY -- in FACTS, one can VERY WELL argue for the extreme likelihood of these stages/levels (and this has been argued for in several places in the readings cited below). Now, assuming this is established as a likelihood, what else must be made clear? (Some of what must be clear is "coming up", below.) ]
FIRST, with respect to the answer to the Question: "Yes, VERY MUCH SO": Because, then, each stage must have its inception (each one at a later point in development) _AND_ one must most-reasonably (on a most-excellent basis, congruent with necessarily applicable assumptions, and those ONLY) hypothesize the CONCRETE TERMS AS: actual, directly observable, overt behavior-patterns in-response-to equally clear (directly observable) environmental aspects. These MUST BE CITED, if one is an empiricist (AND, one IS an empiricist, if one is a scientist). And, hopefully, one can cite HOW these SUPPOSEDLY OBSERVABLE 'things' _ARE_ observable in a way that is now PRACTICAL (i.e. observable in actual practice, with tools-of-observation WE HAVE).
ALL THIS _CAN_ NOW BE DONE, TODAY !! The following paper provides a good part of the justification (of the nature described above) and indicates something of the NATURE of the hypotheses IN PERCEPTUAL-SHIFT TERMS: These perceptual shifts WILL have DIRECTLY observable MANIFESTATIONS (as was just said, and described) -- to empirically establish the organism ITSELF in/with its environment (as well as provide the scientist, the psychologist, with an empirical foundation for understanding -- from THAT concrete empirically-established point in development). Here's the paper to begin with: "A Human Ethogram ... " ( Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
) And, then, for a full perspective and a large set of clear justifications (addressing all other major related assumptions and addressing many, many prominent issues in psychology today), see the Questions (asked) and Answers (given), under the profile, Brad Jesness , under Contributions, and finally, under Questions and under Answers.After that reading: Do you understand? Can you see how it perhaps CAN now be done, with the new eye-tracking technology, etc.? Are there any better empirical investigations, for some major empirical foundations? (NOT likely, so we should try!)
If there is more that needs to be done, to start, that I can help with, then let me know. (Caution: I am old and tired AND in no sort of position to act, other than with the sort of direction I have already provided, i.e. I am retired and otherwise useless.)
P.S. For a most-likely guess to provide more on the likely nature of the perceptual shifts, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_Technologies_in_the_role_of_a_MICROSCOPE_for_psychology_been_developed_which_can_now_be_used_to_investigate_important_observational_specifics?
(It has been my hope to do the SORT of work those "steeped" in psychology DO NOT DO. )
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Developmental Psychology