Conversations on the Intersection Between Faith and Science | Connecting the Dots The award-winning public radio program On Being, with Krista Tippett, has provided us with in-depth audio interviews on the intersection between faith and science with a range of guests including theoretical physicists and Vatican Observatory astronomers. Listen below and use the comments section to add your voice to the conversation. Freeman Dyson and Paul Davies on Einstein’s God Albert Einstein’s quip that “God does not play dice with the universe,” was about quantum physics, not a statement of faith. Janna Levin on Mathematics, Purpose and Truth As a theoretical physicist, Janna Levin probes whether the universe is finite or infinite. Brother Guy Consolmagno and Father George Coyne on Asteroids, Stars and the Love of God Four Jesuits in history have had asteroids named after them. Uncovering the Codes for Reality with S. Are we in the matrix? Natalie Batalha on Exoplanets and Love: Science That Connects Us to One Another
Psychoanalysis Psychoanalysis is a set of psychological and psychotherapeutic theories and associated techniques, originally popularized by Austrian physician Sigmund Freud and stemming partly from the clinical work of Josef Breuer and others. Since then, psychoanalysis has expanded and been revised, reformed and developed in different directions. This was initially by Freud's colleagues and students, such as Alfred Adler and Carl Gustav Jung who went on to develop their own ideas independently from Freud. Later neo-Freudians included Erich Fromm, Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan and Jacques Lacan. The basic tenets of psychoanalysis include the following: Under the broad umbrella of psychoanalysis there are at least 22 theoretical orientations regarding human mental development. Psychoanalysis has received criticism from a wide variety of sources. History[edit] 1890s[edit] The idea of psychoanalysis first started to receive serious attention under Sigmund Freud. 1900–1940s[edit] 1940s–present[edit]
Hume and Kant The 1700s saw many great thinkers who have left a lasting impact on modern philosophy and science -- and psychology. But there were two who would, between them, define the nature of science, especially psychology. They are, of course, David Hume and Immanuel Kant. David Hume was born April 26, 1711 in Edinburgh, Scotland. His family suggested he try law, and he tried, but found that it -- as he put it -- made him sick. Hume was the ultimate skeptic, convincingly reducing matter, mind, religion, and science to a matter of sense impressions and memories. I will let him speak for himself. All ideas are copies of impressions...it is impossible for us to think of anything which we have not antecedently felt by our senses.... And so...no matter! There are some philosophers (e.g. And no mind! There is no idea in metaphysics more obscure or uncertain than necessary connection between cause and effect. Out with cause and effect! So long, science! In 1752, he wrote Political Discourses. 1.
10 Psychological Experiments That Went Horribly Wrong Psychology as we know it is a relatively young science, but since its inception it has helped us to gain a greater understanding of ourselves and our interactions with the world. Many psychological experiments have been valid and ethical, allowing researchers to make new treatments and therapies available, and giving other insights into our motivations and actions. Sadly, others have ended up backfiring horribly — ruining lives and shaming the profession. Here are ten psychological experiments that spiraled out of control. 10. Stanford Prison Experiment Prisoners and guards In 1971, social psychologist Philip Zimbardo set out to interrogate the ways in which people conform to social roles, using a group of male college students to take part in a two-week-long experiment in which they would live as prisoners and guards in a mock prison. 9. Wendell Johnson, of the University of Iowa, who was behind the study Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber, also seen top 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. David Reimer
The Mortality Paradox by Maria Popova “Our overblown intellectual faculties seem to be telling us both that we are eternal and that we are not.” “It is quite impossible for a thinking being to imagine nonbeing, a cessation of thought and life,” Goethe, who ceased to be 181 years ago this week, proclaimed as he concluded that “in this sense, everyone carries the proof of his own immortality within himself.” Since the dawn of time, it has been the human instinct to resolve the psychological dilemma by constructing various immortality narratives — one of the hallmarks of our species. In Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization (public library), Cambridge University philosopher Stephen Cave explores the inner workings of that ancient impulse, inviting us on a mind-bending, intense, at times unsettling and at times deeply comforting journey into the most cavernous quarters of the human psyche. The fact is, whenever we try to imagine the reality of our deaths we stumble. Share on Tumblr
Bobo doll experiment The Bobo doll experiment was the collective name of the experiments conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963 studying children's behavior after watching an adult model act aggressively towards a Bobo doll. There are different variations of the experiment. The most notable experiment measured the children's behaviour after seeing the model get rewarded, punished or experience no consequence for beating up the bobo doll. This experiment is the empirical demonstration of Bandura's social learning theory. The Bobo doll[edit] Bobo doll A Bobo doll is an inflatable toy that is about 5 feet tall and is usually made of a soft durable vinyl or plastic. Experiment in 1961[edit] Method[edit] The participants in this experiment (Bandura, Ross & Ross 1961) were 36 boys and 36 girls from the Stanford University nursery school. For the experiment, each child was exposed to the scenario individually, so as not to be influenced or distracted by classmates. Results[edit] Criticism[edit] Variation 1:
Joshua Knobe & x-phi A new breed of thinkers takes the search for wisdom to the street. Josh Knobe has comfortable seating in his philosophy department office at Yale University—a small couch somewhere between a love seat and a sofa in size. It is most decidedly not, however, an armchair, which might seem a trivial distinction. But in Knobe's world, one's position on armchairs can be a matter of grave import. "Yeah, it's a couch rather than an armchair," says Knobe, '96. For the past century or so, philosophy has primarily entailed solitary ruminations to puzzle out deep truths about the nature of human existence—questions about reason, knowledge, values, free will. But Knobe is one of the leading lights of a new field called experimental philosophy, or "x-phi" for short. In many ways, Knobe is the closest thing experimental philosophy has to a rock star. Conducted in 2003, the experiment examined people's perception of intentionality based on their opinions about two scenarios. Let's take it to the streets
Locus of control In personality psychology, locus of control refers to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's "locus" (Latin for "place" or "location") is conceptualized as either internal (the person believes they can control their life) or external (meaning they believe that their decisions and life are controlled by environmental factors which they cannot influence, or by chance or fate).[1] Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving test results, people with an internal locus of control would tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities, whereas people with an external locus of control would tend to praise or blame an external factor such as the teacher or the test.[2] History[edit] Applications[edit]
Intelligence: The Evolution of Night Owls IQs and Zs Night owls are smarter than other people, and now we may know why. The modern world contains many features our slow-to-evolve brains still find unfamiliar—cars, TVs, hot dogs on a stick. But the world has always thrown new stuff at us, and brighter humans may adapt more ably. Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at The London School of Economics and Political Science, argues that, while we have specialized mental modules for navigation, social interaction, and other age-old tasks, general intelligence is its own module handling only evolutionarily novel circumstances. A previous study found that evening people are smarter than morning people. Night Lights
Id, ego and super-ego Although the model is structural and makes reference to an apparatus, the id, ego and super-ego are purely symbolic concepts about the mind and do not correspond to actual somatic structures of the brain (such as the kind dealt with by neuroscience). The concepts themselves arose at a late stage in the development of Freud's thought: the "structural model" (which succeeded his "economic model" and "topographical model") was first discussed in his 1920 essay Beyond the Pleasure Principle and was formalized and elaborated upon three years later in his The Ego and the Id. Freud's proposal was influenced by the ambiguity of the term "unconscious" and its many conflicting uses. Id[edit] According to Freud the id is unconscious by definition: In the id, "contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out. ... Developmentally, the id precedes the ego; i.e., the psychic apparatus begins, at birth, as an undifferentiated id, part of which then develops into a structured ego.
What Does Lacan Say About… Desire? | LACANONLINE.COM Our desires are not our own, they are the Other’s There are two relatively straightforward ways in which we can understand one of Lacan’s most well-known maxims, that “Man’s desire is the desire of the Other”? (Seminar XI, p.235). Firstly, that desire is essentially a desire for recognition from this ‘Other’; secondly that desire is for the thing that we suppose the Other desires, which is to say, the thing that the Other lacks. In commenting on the way that desire repeats and insists through the transference and the signifier in psychoanalytic work, Lacan verifies our first reading, that desire is fundamentally a desire for recognition: In other words, desire pushes for recognition. So firstly our desire is a desire for recognition. We never fully know exactly what the Other desires or why it desires it, or in what way we ourselves might be implicated. “The object of man’s desire, and we are not the first to say this, is essentially an object desired by someone else.
Sigmund Freud Sigmund Freud (/frɔɪd/;[2] German pronunciation: [ˈziːkmʊnt ˈfʁɔʏ̯t]; born Sigismund Schlomo Freud; 6 May 1856 – 23 September 1939) was an Austrian neurologist, now known as the father of psychoanalysis. Freud qualified as a doctor of medicine at the University of Vienna in 1881,[3] and then carried out research into cerebral palsy, aphasia and microscopic neuroanatomy at the Vienna General Hospital.[4] Upon completing his habilitation in 1895, he was appointed a docent in neuropathology in the same year and became an affiliated professor (professor extraordinarius) in 1902.[5][6] Psychoanalysis remains influential within psychotherapy, within some areas of psychiatry, and across the humanities. Biography[edit] Early life and education[edit] Freud's birthplace, a rented room in a locksmith's house, Příbor, Czech Republic Freud (aged 16) and his beloved[12] mother, Amalia, in 1872 In 1859, the Freud family left Freiberg. Freud entered the University of Vienna at age 17. Early followers[edit]