Ethogram Theory and the Theories of Copernicus "et al" : beyond analogy, but a real similarity
Back in the 1500s, Copernicus "stepped back" and looked at more and more carefully. He gave us a reason to think that, indeed, everything does NOT revolve around the Earth.
In the next century, Galileo Galilei and Keplar gave us more reasons to think this way. Keplar described orbits of the planets as elliptical and Galileo showed that OTHER non-Earth objects had things going around them (e.g. Saturn -- the moons). Finally, with Newton's work, the orbits of the planets were mathematically described.
Now, I firmly think Ethogram Theory is more than an analogy to that above, but has REAL similarity. Ethogram Theory "steps back" and looks at more (and more carefully as well). Ethogram Theory looks at cognitive development in a way like Piaget, but Piaget's theory is merely just descriptive and puts forward nothing like proximate causes; thus, in a way Ethogram Theory, with regard to Piaget's particular theory, is only an analogy to Piaget's, with Ethogram Theory empirical and totally investigateable ; the weakness is not with Ethogram Theory but with Piaget's. Ethogram Theory, like Piaget's , reckons cognitive development as central to most major developments in Psychology. Ethogram Theory yet sees way to see similar stages, not only with Piaget's. but phenomenology described by other major stage theorists. Some of these stage theories, Piaget's in particular, actually have good evidence of universality among peoples (despite being only descriptive); such is seen in all cultures tested. But, by being just descriptive, Piaget doesn't NOT even point us at proximate causes, AND to totally empirical things that could be empirically investigated -- exactly verified or amended, totally INVESTIGATABLE with modern eye-tracking technology.
This is what Ethogram Theory does. If you are familiar with Ethogram Theory, indeed : material, empirical, actual, directly observable phenomenon are cited for the cognitive stage transitions. These are perceptual shifts, often attentional/perceptual shifts (in what the subject looks at, and seeks to see better and more of).
I would argue that something like these shifts is necessary. Nothing except something like Ethogram Theory stages, points clearly to anything fully empirical.
Finally : The productive thinking about Ethogram Theory would be BY FAR mainly inductive processes. And, in fact, inductive processes ARE the very main way [ at least ] ALL other mammals process information and learn. I firmly think that the major types of learning in humans are via such inductive processes, in both child and adult -- for most processing of information both for advanced scientists and babies. [ There are qualitatively different types of inductive learning, varying with the stages. ]
I am going downhill hard and fast (related to age and me); I would guess this is my last post.
Sorry you are going downhill fast, but wisdom can emerge at any time rather than regurgitation of past knowledge and its deductions. This being said, our limited knowledge of cognitive development has to be based on observations of diverse reality, as per Copernicus. The observer does have an intricate effect upon the observation, so deductive reasoning alone limits and induction takes us beyond the assumptions of neatly packaged compartmentalized thinking, antithetical to the pioneers in thought and cognition. Margaret Mead tried to break through this by her investigations into other diverse culture/paradigmatic views. She said: "Children need to be taught how to think, not what to think." Albert Einstein in Relativity recognized that everything is relative, everything is in relationship with everything else from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic. The analogs in nature he observed led to his own theory inductions, never fully proven by science until years after his death. He stated: "I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music." Art met Science in his thinking. We need merger of the arts to express cognitions that go beyond our current cognitions/assumptions/compartmentalized thought and observe All inducing in us that which we participate in throughout the cosmos. Then science can deduce new ideas from that inspirational origin with first humility and then heuristic quality. Psychology is still a new science still defending itself by certitude of what cognition is, which limits our understanding. William James, the Father of American Psychology investigated the "Stuff of Consciousness" grounding in the observable, pragmatics of the stuff of the Cosmos.
Agree. Dialogue with the children opens explorations in education rather than closing young minds.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning