Quote:
Originally Posted by jukofyork
If you took a modern PC back to the Victorian age: does a person learning that "pulling this bit out, makes it stop working!!!" or "putting a light bulb across this bit makes it light up!!!" really mean anything in terms understanding the workings of the PC?
In isolation, maybe not. We build knowledge by accumulating data from multiple sources. Once we take this data, then see the difference between people with damage to these brain regions vs people who train them, or see that they robustly outperform control subjects in a number of different attention related tasks, or hear them personally talk about how they can feel the affect of these interventions in their daily lives, then yes, I'd have to say that does say
something in terms of our understanding.
The only reason I pointed to neuro-imaging evidence is that it was probably the least likely to get slaughtered on a forum full of professional gamblers where a quantitative/positivist bias is probable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukofyork
Not to say Psychology is totally useless, but I think future generations will look back on it as modern Chemists look back at Alchemy.
I don't think the time warp argument is very compelling. I think we can all agree that our understanding today will look primitive in future generations - I hope so for humanity's sake! What is the alternative? Do we give up on understanding the human condition because it's too messy and complicated, and because we do not have flawless methods?
Again, I'd rather not get into an epistemological and ontological ****-storm in here because I know how entrenched all of us are in our positions on that matter. I was merely pointing out the area of psychology I thought to be of most relevance to poker players that traditionally gets very little airtime in these discussions.