Peggy, Very good points. I realize my answer to Owen might have given the impression that Psychology had nothing that could serve as a solid foundation. Not so. If I believed there was nothing available for a foundation, I would have titled the blog somethings like "Time to abandon psychology". There is chance at "Fixing Psychology", because the the needed material is there. If you cut through the (abundant) rhetorical posturing and dig into historic findings, then psychology has plenty of material on which to build a solid, and fairly unified science. Part of the problem is that once questions have been answered in a fairly solid way, people stop researching in those directions - and for some crazy reason, psychologists stop teaching things that are not currently popular research topics, and so much really great and definitive work has been forgotten. Indeed, much of that good work falls under "Developmental Psychology," an area in which, traditionally, researchers have had a good handle on physiological and evolutionary issues.
Eric P.S. Agree completely with your analysis of your professor's bias. On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 01:16 PM, peggy miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > >My questions keep disappearing, but I will try again responding to the discussion on science of psychology being fragmented. I believe, having studied it for a few years, that psychologists are widely separate in their core views because psychology, historically, tried too hard to separate the mind from the body, and from the universe. Developmental psychology comes a bit closer to the "truth" because of its heavy inclusion of the physique. In my opinion, due to this first and primary exclusionary fault, the results of psychological experiments are skewed. Sort of like how early science, which did not include quantum theory, quarks, etc, are missing key data/theorems in determining the rational for results. For example, when studying psychology for a few years in New Hampshire, I happened to respond to comments by a few professors who were saying that experiments showed that religious people have the presence of a different tiny "thing" in the central part of the brain near the hypothalamus (as I recall). They said this was leading to conclusions that there was a flaw in religious people, possibly genetically caused. I asked (a couple times) -- "Could it be that rather than religious people having something extra in their brain causing their religiousity, that non-religious people -- atheists and such -- have something missing from theirs?" (not intending a bias either way, but it irked me that they seemed to be saying that scientists were assuming if you were religious in bent, that meant you had a flaw. It also was of interest to me that many of the psychological scientists being quoted were non-religious.) > >The response was --- "Well, good question. The type of question we need to keep asking." >Studying psychology did not enhance my belief in the science. I did find that developmental psychology -- studying neurons, child development, cognitive behavior and such seemed to have more reliable studies and results. > >Have a great day! >Peggy Miller > >-- > >>Peggy Miller, owner/OEO >>Highland Winds ><http://wix.com/peggymiller/highlandwinds> >Shop is at 1520 S. 7th St. W. (Just off Russell, four blocks from Good Food Store) > > > >>Art, Photography, Herbs and Writings >>406-541-7577 (home/office/shop) >Shop Hours: Tues/Wed: 12-4 > Thurs: 3-7 pm > Fri-Sat: 10 am -2pm > > > > ============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
