Chuck Huff
Mon, 11 Sep 2000 19:33:39 -0700
At 3:22 PM -0700 9/11/00, HART_CHRISTIAN wrote: >I tend to fall on the side of Chuck Huff; the side of humility. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Christian about almost everything he said in his post. And I particularly like the bit of history regarding the vitriol surrounding the work in psychoneuroimmunology. I must, however disagree that my side is the "side of humility." One can encourage a virtue in others, but it is tricky to claim it for one's own. This morning a student in intro asked me why the textbook said it was not simply the procedures that make for good science. She said she had been taught in her other science courses that science WAS good procedure. I mentioned at least three things that were hard to classify under procedure: 1) Scientific virtues. (honesty, skepticism, respect for data, humility, perseverance etc.) 2) Creativity. It is hard to specify a procedure for the creative part of doing theory and designing empirical tests (though some cognitive psych folks are working on it). 3) Other People. Science is a social process. Rather than objective, it is really inter-subjective. I must convince other smart, motivated folks (in the context of the virtues listed above) that the effects I report are real and important. So, oddly enough, the endeavor that critics say dehumanizes and objectifies us, nevertheless depends crucially upon virtue, creativity, and social interaction. -Chuck - Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/ - Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057