These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Derek,
It depends of course on what one means by empathy. I've been arguing
for
years that all the social sciences draw implicitly on our human
capacity for
*understanding* the actions of others (Einfühlung?), and that our
investigations can and should be interpretive, hermeneutic. Of
course many
others have made similar points. To say that genuine science is not
interpretive would be in my mind simply a false claim.
Martin
On 1/14/09 4:20 PM, "Derek Melser" <derek.melser@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, if mind/consciousness/
thinking is an
action, then, because our perception of others' actions always
requires
empathy, and because empathy is not an acceptable observation
method in the
sciences, there will never be a genuine science of
mind/consciousness/thinking. But at least we'll no longer be
bamboozled by
the mind/body problem...
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca