Hi Perhaps I'm in the minority but I did find this discussion interesting and do think it is relevant to the teaching of psychology as an empirical science, albeit in a perhaps round-about way. Specifically, what do we teach about the relative value of concrete, specific observations and general theory in the interpretation of specific events? Chris and Allen represent somewhat divergent views on this matter, I suspect (not polar opposites by any means). Chris is willing to infer from a generally well-founded model to the specific case of Darwin, whereas Allen would like to see concrete evidence with respect to Darwin. I'm probably toward the Allen end of things, at least somewhat and perhaps quite close.
It is interesting, I think, that this should arise in the context of a discussion of Darwin. One of the brilliant features of Darwin's "Origins", again in my view, is the amazing preponderance of fact and observation to theory. A few general principles (variation, selection, ...) are buttressed by a wealth of observation. It is perhaps why the argument was so compelling despite its many non-scientific hurdles. I am constantly amazed by Darwin's capacity to extract evidence from the world ... I think his "Worm" book is one of the most brilliant I've ever read (although I have no idea how his theory as stood up), including his "perceptual" studies of worms in his office/study (he cut pieces of paper of different shapes to determine whether worms pulled leaves into their holes at night by trial and error or by perceptual identification ... the answer was ...). On the other side of the coin, the "science studies" people (not exhaustive of historians of science, as Chris noted) have perhaps demonstrated the opposite bias, a willingness to build immense theoretical edifices on the basis of rather flimsy evidence. Kuhn immediately distanced himself from the over-generalizers, which did not of course lessen appeals to Kuhn by subsequent critics of the objectivity of science (or at least did not eliminate such appeals). Darwin, of course, manifests many other properties of eminent scientists (e.g., paying particular attention to apparent weaknesses or challenges to his theoretical ideas, a keen capacity to amass evidence from diverse and not always obvious sources, an appreciation of the general principle of accretion, ...), all of which we would be well advised to engender in our students. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04-Apr-06 5:30:24 PM >>> Sorry, Chris. All this arose from the fact that I merely asked for evidence for your assertions. But you're right that I shouldn't have taken Steve Fuller for the prototypical exponent of *all* such writings as you alluded to * though in my own defence I have to say that the contentions that I took issue with *were* very much the kind of thing one finds from the "science studies" crowd. But you're certainly right that it's time to call it a day. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esterson.org/ -------------------------------------- Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:26:57 -0400 Author: "Christopher D. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Evolution in the news Body: Allen, > Your transparent attempt to assimilate the work of all historians of > science to that of Steve Fuller (who is not even an historian) is plain > absurd. "The science" isn't missing from good historical accounts of > science. Moderns historians of science (unlike many scientists who > attempt to write histories of their own fields) simply acknowledge that > there is more going on in scientists lives, and more behind their > actions, than what appears in their published works. Like everyone else, > scientists strategize -- not only intellectualy but also politically, > socially, personally, etc. Among other things, they worry about the > possible reactions of those who have the power to make their lives > uncomfortable, whether fellow scientists, national politicians, the > local vicar, their neighbors, or their their in-laws. Scientists are no > better or worse than anyone else in this regard. You and I have clashed > over your "heroic" view of scientists in the past, and I see no reason > to continue so fruitless (and irrelevant, to this list) debate now. > > Regards, > -- > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > > 416-736-5115 ex. 66164 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > ============================= --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
