Psychology
Most of these papers will need heavy revision in the future, and I’d love it if you became part of that process. I welcome feedback, critiques, and questions at my address hunt dot topher at gmail dot com. In particular I’d love insights on what parts of my writing are particularly clear or unclear. These are heavy concepts, and I need all the practice I can get in communicating them effectively!
Dec. 17th | Summary of Kohlberg 1971: From is to ought.
I spent months writing a 23-page summary of Kohlberg’s arguments and reasoning in this massively complex article on the naturalistic fallacy. Then I mindmapped it using Openoffice’s Draw program, which is shockingly well-suited to the task. PDFs of both summary (with my comments in footnotes) and mindmap are linked below.
In a nutshell, Kohlberg is arguing that although in many cases it is inappropriate to make conclusions about the way things should be (normatively) based on our observations of the way things are (empirically), we can make some statements about philosophy and ethics based on our research of how people develop morally. He identifies multiple forms of this “naturalistic fallacy” and reviews his research on moral development which helps justify why he thinks that his particular form of “is” to “ought” conclusion is not a naturalistic fallacy.
Dec. 9th | Reflective Judgment construct definitions, part 1: Beliefs
My first stab at defining the construct of “beliefs” in epistemology. This is a first draft and, as with all of my work, feedback and critique (especially about what parts are unclear or confusing) is warmly welcome.
