"Let’s begin by avoiding an obvious mistake. I hasten to add that I am not accusing
Rosenberg of this mistake. Rather, by agreeing with Rosenberg that this is a mistake we
can begin to establish some common ground. Here is the mistake: As a descriptive or
interpretive matter, it would be wrong to claim that most physicalists believe that the only
things that exist are the things that are recognized by fundamental physics.1 The view that
all that exists are strictly physical things—the entities, properties, relations, etc. of
fundamental physics—is a radical one, and it is usually called “eliminative materialism”
or “eliminative physicalism.”2 So as an objection to physicalism, it is no use to point to
familiar objects such as books, trees, and dogs, and observe that they are not entities
recognized by fundamental physics, QED. Physicalists who do not intend to assert
eliminative physicalism will rightly think that such an argument misrepresents their view
rather than refuting it. "
--Thomas W. Polger, 'A Place for Dogs and Trees?', PSYCHE 12 (5), December 2006

Heh. I'm an amateur psychologist, which is to say I have a degree in it but no work experience or proper credentials. If you'd told me at uni that I'd end up reading this stuff for fun, I naturally would've concluded you were in need of professional help (that's often been my conclusion on a lot of things anyhow). But reading these articles now, I'm struck by the delightful prose of the pieces. And by one of the features of psychology: its narrative. There is no way to explain a human without narrative. Even behaviourism has its narrative. Even the most mundane part of a life. Even the most spiritual.

*That's* why I like psychology.

And in its attempts to prove itself a science, psychology undermines everything we think science offers. And yet, it keeps trying. That's the other thing I like. It's perversity. ;)

And that's what I've been doing this fine Sunday morning before commencing the wrapping of Xmas presents & the eating of breakfast. Excelsior.