Our friend and commenter Piercello has started a blog for his thesis regarding human nature. It's an early stage work yet, but one that I think will interest a number of you.
It's an interesting concept, and I will start the discussion with a word of warning to the author. The thesis is phrased in terms of utility: there are "advantages" to us in understanding human nature as you propose. Especially,
This definition allows the vast internal complexity of human emotional life to be comprehensively mapped using just three factors[.]The question of whether a model is useful is entirely separate from the question of whether or not it is true. We know the ancient Greeks built remarkable machines based on epicycles, which used that approach to predict the movement of stars in the sky. This was extraordinarily useful, especially in naval navigation. Yet it wasn't also a true model of how the stars actually move.
This tendency becomes even more dangerous when we deal with things that cannot be seen or measured with any final accuracy (like emotions). Even if the model finally proves to be tremendously useful in a predictive capacity, don't confuse that utility with truth value. Preserve the sense of mystery in your conceptions, and always work on recognizing the limits of your model.
The other advantage offered by the model is that it is simple, and therefore elegant -- "just three factors." This is an advantage with a proud history in Western thought, most famously cited in Occam's Razor.
Remember here, though, that Occam's Razor is a tool for gamblers, not a divining rod that points to truth. It is good for getting a sense of what is most likely. It cannot tell you what is.
They key to the arts is not to mistake them for sciences. When "social scientists" do otherwise, even the dismal ones, the practical consequences of their bad philosophy may be severe.
No comments:
Post a Comment