I just took a look at this article. It is a pretty silly and naïve argument based largely on questions about the scientific merit of self-report data, with the underlying assumption that all psychological findings are based on self-reports and other "communications." Rickman's claim is that all communications are subject to interpretation and error and consequently are not acceptable as valid scientific observations. I grant that these data can be inaccurate, but the assumption that observations and measurements of phenomena in the physical sciences are by their nature infallible is awfully naive.
An example of the author's failure to understand psychological research is given by the following joke (quoted from the article), which clearly misrepresents the behavioral approach to psychology: "Why not focus on studying observable human behaviour, as you can study the movements of falling bodies and theorise on that evidence? After all, humans are behaving bodies. There are various flaws in this approach, and one of them is illustrated by a well-targeted joke. Two behaviourists spend a night passionately making love. In the morning, one says to the other, “It was good for you. How was it for me?”" Does this depiction of behavioral methodology resonate with any hard-core behaviorists out in TipsLand? It is laughable, although not for the reasons the author intended to communicate. Heh - guess he provides some direct evidence about the flaws of communication part. Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Associate Professor, Psychology University of West Florida Pensacola, FL 32514 – 5751 Phone: (850) 857-6355 or 473-7435 e-mail: csta...@uwf.edu CUTLA Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cutla/ Personal Web Pages: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/website/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Gerald Peterson [mailto:peter...@vmail.svsu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:12 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] psychology is not a science Yes, stereotypes about science abound, but the question is what constitutes a science and many would argue it has to do with methodological approaches not subject matter. Yes, psych had physics envy, and psych is quite diverse in its fields and approaches, generally we approach our work with scientific methods. Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 peter...@svsu.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: tay...@sandiego.edu To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 11:01:19 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [tips] psychology is not a science This is my reject during the tips-cation (new word like 'staycation' for staying at home vacation; now when tips does down for a few days we can call it a 'tipscation.' ========================================================== I came across this article while seaching for something else. Certainly a very narrow perspective but explains why so many fail to see psychology as a 'science'. ---------------------------------------------------------- I was slightly taken aback when I heard a speaker at a psychology lecture meeting claiming confidently that psychology was a science. Of course, if we define science broadly, as the systematic search for knowledge, psychology would qualify for that label. But it is not terminology that is at issue here, but a matter of substantial importance. When we talk of science, we primarily think of physical science. If a mother said that her son was studying science at Cambridge, would psychology come first to the listener’s mind? The paradigm of the physical sciences is physics, because its elegant theories based on ample observation and experimentation provide clear explanations and reliable predictions. It also provides the foundations for the technologies which have transformed our lives. The man on the Clapham bus may not understand the laws of physics, but he happily relies on the means of transport based on those laws. In consequence, the methods of physics become the model of scientific methodology. Full article available at: http://www.philosophynow.org/issue74/74rickman.htm Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 tay...@sandiego.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
