Cognitive Paradigms With Truth Values

[eijah]

I recently came across the phase "cognitive paradigms with truth values".

That phrase seems to me to mean some kinds of root metaphors which are useful. But that is only a guess. Can anyone here tell me what that phase actually means, and give any examples?

[PixyMisa]

We can has context, pls?

[eijah]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

We can has context, pls?

Sorry. While I am looking for any context and all contexts where that term might apply, I can't give you a context -- or an example myself.

However, late last night, someone elsewhere suggested to me that, "Id, super-id, ego is an example, and Euclidean geometry is not."

Hope that helps.

[Wudang]

It sounds like that person meant ideas about how we think which can be said to be true or false (assuming the truth values are boolean which may not be the case) or partly true.
It can have a more specific meaning in AI which is more like a mental image which is more or less true.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by eijah

Sorry. While I am looking for any context and all contexts where that term might apply, I can't give you a context -- or an example myself.

However, late last night, someone elsewhere suggested to me that, "Id, super-id, ego is an example, and Euclidean geometry is not."

Hope that helps.

It's not a sufficiently specific phrase to mean much of anything out of context. The component terms cognitive and paradigm are mercilessly abused by purveyors of every kind of nonsense, so out of context it's impossible to say what it means, or if it means anything at all.

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The component terms cognitive and paradigm are mercilessly abused by purveyors of every kind of nonsense, so out of context it's impossible to say what it means, or if it means anything at all.

Indeed. I vaguely recall something from cognitive science (many years ago) but my google-fu was weak and just found loads of waffle.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by eijah

Sorry. While I am looking for any context and all contexts where that term might apply, I can't give you a context -- or an example myself.

However, late last night, someone elsewhere suggested to me that, "Id, super-id, ego is an example, and Euclidean geometry is not."

Hope that helps.

Only a little. The theory of ego, superego and id is a cognitive paradigm in the field of psychotherapy. It isn't a theory that many psychotherapists find useful today so I would argue that it's 'truth value' - its relation to the real world - is low.

However Euclidean geometry is a useful and functional cognitive paradigm in the field of mathematics, so I would say that its truth value is high.

Does this help at all?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by eijah

I recently came across the phase "cognitive paradigms with truth values".

That phrase seems to me to mean some kinds of root metaphors which are useful. But that is only a guess. Can anyone here tell me what that phase actually means, and give any examples?

It means 'waffle'.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

It's not a sufficiently specific phrase to mean much of anything out of context. The component terms cognitive and paradigm are mercilessly abused by purveyors of every kind of nonsense, so out of context it's impossible to say what it means, or if it means anything at all.

I agree with your criticism of the use of the component terms. But I am at a loss to give you the context you require. Because I am looking for contexts and examples when the joined terms have truth value.

So far in my survey here and elsewhere of answers to my initial question, I have discovered that ego, super-ego, id are generally considered an example of a cognitive paradigm, one with truth value to some psychotherapists, Whereas, some people see Euclidean geometry as a cognitive paradigm and others do not. (The latter apparently seeing E.G. as the territory, not the map so to speak.) BTW, I do not know which side is more likely correct.

[PixyMisa]

Without context, it has no meaning. I suggest you give up and go see a movie.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Without context, it has no meaning. I suggest you give up and go see a movie.

I am asking for meanings and examples given any contexts that are appropriate for those meanings and examples.

Lots of people are able to do that. Others apparently are not able to do so. No problem as my CP question seems to speak a lot to the strengths and limits of each person's own CP(s).

BTW, FWIW, a movie I highly recommend is the latest Woodie Allen one!!!

[eijah]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Only a little. The theory of ego, superego and id is a cognitive paradigm in the field of psychotherapy. It isn't a theory that many psychotherapists find useful today so I would argue that it's 'truth value' - its relation to the real world - is low.

However Euclidean geometry is a useful and functional cognitive paradigm in the field of mathematics, so I would say that its truth value is high.

Does this help at all?

Thanks! It helps a lot. As does the fact that some folks think that E.G. is a CP and others do not.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by dafydd

It means 'waffle'.

At first, I thought so as well.

But upon reflection, there seems to be much in the question that some people might find worth thinking about, depending on their CP's. For example, someone told me that as a result of pondering the question he is now inclined to think that thinking is a kind of information processing of information processing. I am not saying he is right or wrong, but only that his IP of IP notion resulted from his thinking about the meaning and examples of CP's that have truth value.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by eijah

Sorry. While I am looking for any context and all contexts where that term might apply, I can't give you a context -- or an example myself.

However, late last night, someone elsewhere suggested to me that, "Id, super-id, ego is an example, and Euclidean geometry is not."

Hope that helps.

there is no id, there is no ego, there is no super-ego, all hogwash.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

there is no id, there is no ego, there is no super-ego, all hogwash.

Even if you are correct, is not the theory of ego, super-ego, id a cognitive paradigm? Even if one with no truth value for you?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by eijah

I am asking for meanings and examples given any contexts that are appropriate for those meanings and examples.

Lots of people are able to do that.

They can guess what it might mean given a certain context.

Without context, it's still meaningless.

Quote:

Others apparently are not able to do so. No problem as my CP question seems to speak a lot to the strengths and limits of each person's own CP(s).

No.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by eijah

Even if you are correct, is not the theory of ego, super-ego, id a cognitive paradigm? Even if one with no truth value for you?

If that's what you decide a cognitive paradigm is, then it most certainly does have a truth value. The truth value is false. Truth value doesn't mean something is true, it means that it can be evaluated as true or false.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by eijah

Even if you are correct, is not the theory of ego, super-ego, id a cognitive paradigm? Even if one with no truth value for you?

Not one with any predicitive value or ability for testing. So about as meaning full as the cognitive paradigm of the tooth fairy.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

They can guess what it might mean given a certain context.

Without context, it's still meaningless.


No.

So how about just giving a context and then a meaning within that context? And perhaps one example. Ego, super-ego and id seems to be such an example from psycho-analysis. And from what people have told me so far, Euclidean geometry seems to be or not be.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Not one with any predicitive value or ability for testing. So about as meaning full as the cognitive paradigm of the tooth fairy.

I think you are confusing a definition with a reality or lack thereof. If I were asked to define "tooth fairy", I could surely do so with quite a bit of accuracy. Even though, we both know that tooth fairies do not exist. So independent of its truth value (which might be 0% truth or might be 100% truth), it seems to me that there is at least one meaning for the term "cognitive paradigm". And probably many.

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Only a little. The theory of ego, superego and id is a cognitive paradigm in the field of psychotherapy. It isn't a theory that many psychotherapists find useful today so I would argue that it's 'truth value' - its relation to the real world - is low.

However Euclidean geometry is a useful and functional cognitive paradigm in the field of mathematics, so I would say that its truth value is high.

Does this help at all?

Is there any advantage in using the word 'paradigm' instead of something else? As I was saying elsewhere today, I avoid using the word 'paradigm'.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Is there any advantage in using the word 'paradigm' instead of something else? As I was saying elsewhere today, I avoid using the word 'paradigm'.

I know what you mean!!! OTOH, there seems to be a concerted effort to work with the term "cognitive paradigm" as such, per, for example, http://cogpo.org/ . BTW, what term do you prefer?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by eijah

I know what you mean!!! OTOH, there seems to be a concerted effort to work with the term "cognitive paradigm" as such, per, for example, http://cogpo.org/ . BTW, what term do you prefer?

Ooops they say ontology, no more to read there.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by eijah

Thanks! It helps a lot. As does the fact that some folks think that E.G. is a CP and others do not.

Well, Euclidean geometry is a framework for organisation of thoughts and conclusions - a 'paradigm' for cognition, if you will. Calculus is a cognitive paradigm, as is algebra, as is the germ theory of disease. Euclidean geometry and the germ theory appear to mirror the real world better than Freudian psychotherapy, so I would argue that their 'truth value' - ie. their utility in thinking about the real world - is higher.

Originally Posted by eijah

I think you are confusing a definition with a reality or lack thereof. If I were asked to define "tooth fairy", I could surely do so with quite a bit of accuracy. Even though, we both know that tooth fairies do not exist. So independent of its truth value (which might be 0% truth or might be 100% truth), it seems to me that there is at least one meaning for the term "cognitive paradigm". And probably many.

I wouldn't call the tooth fairy a paradigm. It's an entity (one that doesn't exist). A single entity cannot be a paradigm, as a paradigm defines a framework for cognition. The tooth fairy may be a part of a paradigm, but it is not one itself.

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Is there any advantage in using the word 'paradigm' instead of something else? As I was saying elsewhere today, I avoid using the word 'paradigm'.

I would argue yes - it's a shorthand way of referring to a particular framework that guides and influences thought. That said, I would be really careful about how I use it, as it is philosophical jargon and thus suffers from all the disadvantages that jargon suffers.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Well, Euclidean geometry is a framework for organisation of thoughts and conclusions - a 'paradigm' for cognition, if you will. Calculus is a cognitive paradigm, as is algebra, as is the germ theory of disease. Euclidean geometry and the germ theory appear to mirror the real world better than Freudian psychotherapy, so I would argue that their 'truth value' - ie. their utility in thinking about the real world - is higher.

I wouldn't call the tooth fairy a paradigm. It's an entity (one that doesn't exist). A single entity cannot be a paradigm, as a paradigm defines a framework for cognition. The tooth fairy may be a part of a paradigm, but it is not one itself.

I would argue yes - it's a shorthand way of referring to a particular framework that guides and influences thought. That said, I would be really careful about how I use it, as it is philosophical jargon and thus suffers from all the disadvantages that jargon suffers.

Much thanks for your very help remarks.

It raises a question which you might think overly pedantic, but it might have some truth value. You say that a paradigm is a framework and not an entity. While I see what you mean and I have no problem with your distinction, I am wondering if a paradigm might also be considered an entity per this definition of an entity...

1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
2. The fact of existence; being.
3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.

[Professor Yaffle]

I think some might use "cognitive paradigm" for a theoretical framework attempting to describe cognitive processes. Under this definition, Freud's ego, id etc would be a cognitive paradigm (though not a useful one), and euclidian geometry would not. Eg. you have different memory paradigms attempting to model how memory works etc.

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by eijah

I know what you mean!!! OTOH... ...BTW, what term do you prefer?

I can't remember knowing the word existed until comparatively recently! Nor can I remember an occasion when I have been stuck for a word when 'paradigm' would have been just the right word to use...so I've no idea what I'd use instead!

[eijah]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

I can't remember knowing the word existed until comparatively recently! Nor can I remember an occasion when I have been stuck for a word when 'paradigm' would have been just the right word to use...so I've no idea what I'd use instead!

Apparently, Kuhn used the word in a new way. Hope you find this of interest as much as I did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm . Regards,

[Wudang]

Originally Posted by eijah

I know what you mean!!! OTOH, there seems to be a concerted effort to work with the term "cognitive paradigm" as such, per, for example, http://cogpo.org/ . BTW, what term do you prefer?

Yes but they seem to be using the term "cognitive paradigm" entirely differently from ideas like "id" etc. From a quick scan I would use the word "scenario" or "stimulus". But PixyMisa is right - just because someone strings the words "cognitive " and "paradigm" together doesn't mean they mean the same thing. You'll see the term "cognitive paradigm" eg used to described a cognitive science or human information processing view of a subject. Paradigm - "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means",

In this sense it seems to relate to a project to define an ontology in the CS sense of a set of concepts within a domain and their relationships. Quite how useful this is in the psychology arena other than as an intellectual exercise is another debate.
Perhaps "quale" would be a better term?

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Wudang

Yes but they seem to be using the term "cognitive paradigm" entirely differently from ideas like "id" etc. From a quick scan I would use the word "scenario" or "stimulus". But PixyMisa is right - just because someone strings the words "cognitive " and "paradigm" together doesn't mean they mean the same thing. You'll see the term "cognitive paradigm" eg used to described a cognitive science or human information processing view of a subject. Paradigm - "you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means",

In this sense it seems to relate to a project to define an ontology in the CS sense of a set of concepts within a domain and their relationships. Quite how useful this is in the psychology arena other than as an intellectual exercise is another debate.
Perhaps "quale" would be a better term?

Perhaps "qyale" is bettr.

[lippard]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Is there any advantage in using the word 'paradigm' instead of something else? As I was saying elsewhere today, I avoid using the word 'paradigm'.

When I see the phrase "truth value" my first interpretation is not a degree of value, but the ordinary sense of "truth value" in logic. To say that one domain includes statements with truth values and one does not is to say that the former contains propositions which are true or false and the latter doesn't--which suggests that it is meaningless or semantically empty (since even the vague, paradoxical, and ambiguous can have truth values).

[eijah]

Originally Posted by lippard

When I see the phrase "truth value" my first interpretation is not a degree of value, but the ordinary sense of "truth value" in logic. To say that one domain includes statements with truth values and one does not is to say that the former contains propositions which are true or false and the latter doesn't--which suggests that it is meaningless or semantically empty (since even the vague, paradoxical, and ambiguous can have truth values).

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense, but as I remember the term as I first encountered it, it had more to do with the concept of usefulness to the person holding or encountering the particular cognitive paradigm.

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by eijah

Apparently, Kuhn used the word in a new way. Hope you find this of interest as much as I did... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm . Regards,

Yes, thank you, I did. I like this bit:

Quote:

.... no paradigms at all in the social sciences since the concepts are polysemic, the deliberate mutual ignorance between scholars and the proliferation of schools in these disciplines. Dogan provides many examples of the non-existence of paradigms in the social sciences in his essay, particularly in sociology, political science and political anthropology.

and this:

Quote:

[edit] Paradigm paralysisPerhaps the greatest barrier to a paradigm shift, in some cases, is the reality of paradigm paralysis: ....

I think, if the word had come into use when I was still teaching, I might have raised an eyebrow or two at staff meetings by asking that people should explain exactly what they meant....!

[eijah]

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Yes, thank you, I did. I like this bit:



and this:

I think, if the word had come into use when I was still teaching, I might have raised an eyebrow or two at staff meetings by asking that people should explain exactly what they meant....!

I too found of great interest the fact that the social sciences seek to not end up with a standard model whereas the physical sciences do. Reminds me (if you do not mind a not intended sexist remark) of the difference between digital-like "last man standing" competition vs. more analogue flows and ebbs of women's fashions that seek to replace each as number one for a while. OTOH, until one standard model in a hard science finally replaces an earlier one, there often is that fashion show kind of competition, yes? And some times a paradigm in the social sciences is for all intents and purposes as timeless as a basic black dress, e.g.,anthropologist Roy Wagner's "obviation". Even if, in the case of obviation, "timelessness" depends a lot on how much time one is willing to invest in learning how to use it as a cognitive paradigm.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by eijah

I too found of great interest the fact that the social sciences seek to not end up with a standard model whereas the physical sciences do.

I disagree, the standard model is in the methodology and procedures, so that a theory of model of social interaction, personal interaction, cultural interaction should be able to be moved from one setting to another.

So the models should be transferable, people may not like it (in the pop version of social science) but it is part of what real social science does.

So take my fathers work in the study of highland Olmec in central Mexico, he likes to use the study of the economics to see how the political power of teh Olmec culture changes as you move from the costal low lands to the highlands. And then how this is reflected in the art and structures that the Olmec culture produces in the different places.

Because here is the funny thing, the lowland Olmec moved these huge rocks at great expense to carve them into single objects, the stone heads and possible family altars. Reflecting great political and social power, in the highlands where large stones are every where and readily available, there are no stone heads and single stone large objects.

So he says that in terms of political power this reflects the fact that the highland Olmec were at the economic outpost of the empire, they have the trappings of the lowland culture ie the babyface figures (in pottery and stone), mixed iconography with highland culture (unlike the unmixed lowland iconography) but the expression of strong political power is absent. In that the high cost artifacts of lowland culture are absent. So you have here a theory of how political power is expressed at a weaker level at a trade outpost of the empire.

[eijah]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I disagree, the standard model is in the methodology and procedures, so that a theory of model of social interaction, personal interaction, cultural interaction should be able to be moved from one setting to another.

So the models should be transferable, people may not like it (in the pop version of social science) but it is part of what real social science does.

So take my fathers work in the study of highland Olmec in central Mexico, he likes to use the study of the economics to see how the political power of teh Olmec culture changes as you move from the costal low lands to the highlands. And then how this is reflected in the art and structures that the Olmec culture produces in the different places.

Because here is the funny thing, the lowland Olmec moved these huge rocks at great expense to carve them into single objects, the stone heads and possible family altars. Reflecting great political and social power, in the highlands where large stones are every where and readily available, there are no stone heads and single stone large objects.

So he says that in terms of political power this reflects the fact that the highland Olmec were at the economic outpost of the empire, they have the trappings of the lowland culture ie the babyface figures (in pottery and stone), mixed iconography with highland culture (unlike the unmixed lowland iconography) but the expression of strong political power is absent. In that the high cost artifacts of lowland culture are absent. So you have here a theory of how political power is expressed at a weaker level at a trade outpost of the empire.

I see your point, but I see Kuhn's point as well. Social scientists use the scientific method which, of course, is why what they do is called social science. But what Kuhn is proposing is that social science does not seek one standard set of answers for any question. OTOH, Kuhn might be over-stating a tendency as a means of making a meaningful distinction between the two.

[SusanB-M1]

I'm afraid I've been in a rhyming mode just this last week. With the BBC Religion boards closing, there have been quite a few end-of-an-era posts so this fitted in quite well. The idea came from this topic, of course. You can sing along to the HMS Pinafore song, 'I'm called Little Buttercup...' I do not post this as a thread-killer, though!!

A cognitive paradigm,
Lost out in space and time,
Was worried and really quite sad.
It tried wikipedia
sought help from the media,
But still its truth values were mad.
It searched on the internet
Still seeking worth - and yet
Precision it failed to achieve.
Till reading philosophy
Here on the BBC,
Found real truth that it could believe.


'I'll get me coat', as they say!

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by eijah

Originally Posted by lippard

When I see the phrase "truth value" my first interpretation is not a degree of value, but the ordinary sense of "truth value" in logic. To say that one domain includes statements with truth values and one does not is to say that the former contains propositions which are true or false and the latter doesn't--which suggests that it is meaningless or semantically empty (since even the vague, paradoxical, and ambiguous can have truth values).

Your interpretation makes a lot of sense, but as I remember the term as I first encountered it, it had more to do with the concept of usefulness to the person holding or encountering the particular cognitive paradigm.

Which probably means your first encounter with the term was in prose written by people who didn't understand the technical meaning of the term, had only guessed at its meaning, had guessed wrong, and whose primary motivation for using the term is that technical terms borrowed from more respectable disciplines (such as logic and mathematics) give their prose an aura of respectability it does not deserve.

That happens a lot, but we can't be certain of that explanation without seeing the context in which you encountered the term, hence the repeated requests for context.

Originally Posted by eijah

I too found of great interest the fact that the social sciences seek to not end up with a standard model whereas the physical sciences do.

The physical sciences often end up with several standard models, each of which models a different thing.

In the mathematical sciences, part of our job is to develop a variety of models from which social or physical scientists can choose a model that works well for the phenomenon they're trying to model.

In some cases, however, logicians and mathematicians are trying to model a particular mathematical thing, such as the integers. In that context, a model is a mathematical structure for which the truth value of the thing's axioms and theorems come out true. For example, the standard model for first order arithmetic consists of the integers with which we are all familiar.

There are also many non-standard models of first-order arithmetic. That fact, which is connected to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, is generally regarded as a nuisance, but Abraham Robinson discovered that those non-standard models can be used to develop a notion of non-standard analysis that may be more in line with the thinking of Newton and Leibniz and, for many people, more intuitive than the foundations that were developed during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

To give one example, Robinson's non-standard analysis is sometimes used to motivate the existence of +0.0 and -0.0 as separate values in the IEEE 754-1985 and IEEE 754-2008 standards for floating point arithmetic, and to explain the branch cuts that motivated that aspect of those standards.

So the word "model" has several different well-defined technical meanings, which we must distinguish from context, as well as its many informal meanings in both ordinary and pseudo-intellectual discourse. The same goes for "truth value".

[eijah]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Which probably means your first encounter with the term was in prose written by people who didn't understand the technical meaning of the term, had only guessed at its meaning, had guessed wrong, and whose primary motivation for using the term is that technical terms borrowed from more respectable disciplines (such as logic and mathematics) give their prose an aura of respectability it does not deserve.

The context was as follows...

I was discussing a way of looking at things based on attempting to see them in terms of degrees of difference and levels of similarity. My friend, who is a retired world-class neuro-scientist, who studied under Penfield and Pribram, mentioned that my notion had the look and feel of a cognitive paradigm with truth value. We soon went on to talking about other things, but the term stuck and I thought it might be worthwhile to see how the term was viewed here. BTW, my friend has a long list of achievements, but prefers to remain anonymous, so, alas, as a full list of his credentials would reveal his identity I am not able to speak further about his credentials. But he did say that he was using the term "truth value" as it was used by William James.

Quote:

That happens a lot, but we can't be certain of that explanation without seeing the context in which you encountered the term, hence the repeated requests for context.

Actually, certainty was much less sought than just someone with the guts to offer anything that might potentially be of (truth) value. The term was from James as passed along to me by a world-class neuro-scientist. I asked here for any definition within any context. That request was repeatedly rejected, for whatever reason. BTW, I could be wrong, but I am inclined to guess ignored due to a fear that an offered definition would not be the correct one for my context. But as I was open to any context, that reluctance seemed and still seems to me to be more a fear of being wrong than anything else. OTOH, others here had no such timidity, and I for one have profited from their lack of fear.

[Beelzebuddy]

Well, the phrase isn't used at all in pubmed, which leads me to suspect it means less than you'd think. Probably he was just saying "yeah that sounds plausible enough."