The message in the following excerpt is far from optimistic:
“We have a psychology whose metaphysical framework or foundation is outdated,
based on a philosophy of science discarded decades ago by physics (long the model
for psychology). Not only is this foundation obsolete, but the conception of its subject
matter, man, is no longer appropriate if indeed it ever was. We have findings that are
irrelevant and meaningless to man, based upon experiments that study
non-representative, atypical samples of subjects who don’t believe what we tell them….
Our data are often analyzed and interpreted incorrectly, and conclusions drawn
without legitimate substantiation.
Psychology lacks relevance and scientific and philosophical sophistication, conducts
trivial and technically incorrect experiments….”
“The portrait is not excessively overdrawn, depressing though it may be, for each
of the charges has a firm basis in reality as each of the authors has stated here.
When one looks at the quantity and quality of such criticisms, and the stature of those
who propose them, one is apt to be overwhelmed by a feeling of futility.”
“We have a psychology whose metaphysical framework or foundation is outdated,
based on a philosophy of science discarded decades ago by physics (long the model
for psychology). Not only is this foundation obsolete, but the conception of its subject
matter, man, is no longer appropriate if indeed it ever was. We have findings that are
irrelevant and meaningless to man, based upon experiments that study
non-representative, atypical samples of subjects who don’t believe what we tell them….
Our data are often analyzed and interpreted incorrectly, and conclusions drawn
without legitimate substantiation.
Psychology lacks relevance and scientific and philosophical sophistication, conducts
trivial and technically incorrect experiments….”
“The portrait is not excessively overdrawn, depressing though it may be, for each
of the charges has a firm basis in reality as each of the authors has stated here.
When one looks at the quantity and quality of such criticisms, and the stature of those
who propose them, one is apt to be overwhelmed by a feeling of futility.”
Written in The Science of Psychology: Critical Reflections (1970) by Schultz, D.P. (p.393)
Such serious charges are not applicable to behaviorism, the philosophy of science
associated with conditioning research. Behavior-analytic psychology connects with biology,
sociology and the humanities; indeed, with any science and human endeavor. Linkages exist
through the people who study the animal kingdom - in and beyond the laboratory - and
can look at themselves reflected as in a mirror. (43)
Such serious charges are not applicable to behaviorism, the philosophy of science
associated with conditioning research. Behavior-analytic psychology connects with biology,
sociology and the humanities; indeed, with any science and human endeavor. Linkages exist
through the people who study the animal kingdom - in and beyond the laboratory - and
can look at themselves reflected as in a mirror. (43)
‘Radical behaviorism’ captures the spirit of Galileo, though the label may yet be
outdated: the ‘radical’ in Galileo’s time is mundane in this century. In 1974, I defended myself
by citing professional literature. Though my ‘N’ equaled ‘one’ (44), my thesis (the first of its kind
in Israel, I believe) was eventually judged worthy. I am grateful to the professors who, despite
initial objections, allowed me to submit my work.
outdated: the ‘radical’ in Galileo’s time is mundane in this century. In 1974, I defended myself
by citing professional literature. Though my ‘N’ equaled ‘one’ (44), my thesis (the first of its kind
in Israel, I believe) was eventually judged worthy. I am grateful to the professors who, despite
initial objections, allowed me to submit my work.
As well, I thank the operant conditioners and applied behavior analysts whose words
I presented at length then, and echo again, herein. I see many good reasons for the research
and the conceptual shift - outlined here - to be taken further.
I presented at length then, and echo again, herein. I see many good reasons for the research
and the conceptual shift - outlined here - to be taken further.
For a brief interim summary, I offer the following statements on science:
“As late as 1963 --- there was no consensus ‘as to what the genes are – whether they
are real or purely fictitious. It may seem surprising that scientists could struggle
to accept the physical reality of something so fundamental to cellular activity, but …
we are in much the same position today in respect of mental processes such as thought
and memory. We know that we have them of course, but we don’t know what, if any,
physical form they take. So it was for a very long time with genes. The idea that you
could pluck one from your body and take it away for study was as absurd … as the
idea that scientists today might capture a stray thought and examine it under
a microscope.” (45)
are real or purely fictitious. It may seem surprising that scientists could struggle
to accept the physical reality of something so fundamental to cellular activity, but …
we are in much the same position today in respect of mental processes such as thought
and memory. We know that we have them of course, but we don’t know what, if any,
physical form they take. So it was for a very long time with genes. The idea that you
could pluck one from your body and take it away for study was as absurd … as the
idea that scientists today might capture a stray thought and examine it under
a microscope.” (45)
Interested readers and members of the scientific community could confirm:
No need for a microscope to capture a thought or a memory!
We can write our thoughts and look at each other as we say what we think and what
we stand for. The history and the philosophical background of science can definitely be narrated
with more human interest.
We can write our thoughts and look at each other as we say what we think and what
we stand for. The history and the philosophical background of science can definitely be narrated
with more human interest.
“The only narrative which can hope to lay a strong hold on the attention of readers is a
narrative which interests them about men and women - for the perfectly obvious reason that they are men and women themselves.” (46)
Herewith some fleeting thoughts: millions are riveted by whodunit novels,
crime and madness, and the ‘trace evidence’ derived from forensic science.
Should scientists draw people to the elements sufficient for sanity and goodness,
behavior science … the tactics … the technology … and the world outlook …
might consistently spread together.
narrative which interests them about men and women - for the perfectly obvious reason that they are men and women themselves.” (46)
Herewith some fleeting thoughts: millions are riveted by whodunit novels,
crime and madness, and the ‘trace evidence’ derived from forensic science.
Should scientists draw people to the elements sufficient for sanity and goodness,
behavior science … the tactics … the technology … and the world outlook …
might consistently spread together.
(42) ‘--- we do want to know when populations are in decline.’ ‘There is grandeur in this [Darwin’s] view of life and it is up to us to ensure or to decide whether there will continue to be grandeur in the life that we leave for future generations.’ Peter Crane, ‘Darwin and Modern Science’, Cambridge University, (9th. July, 2009)
(43) Some consider ‘single-subject’ experiments ‘pseudo-science’, although the variables maintaining individuals in social balance include attraction … more than a matter for statistical analysis of variance from a group average.
(44) Bill Bryson (2003) A Short History of Nearly Everything (p 486) Black Swan Edition. This book tells the history of the physical sciences. Psychology - not seen as a real science - is excluded from Bryson’s history.
(45) Wilkie Collins (1861) The Woman in White, Preface (p.20) Heron Books, London. .
No comments:
Post a Comment