Bill, Learning names and dates is not learning history. They are just the foundation to learning it. Similarly, learning basic math is not learning science, but it is a foundation upon which (much of) science rests. Just like one cannot really get started doing (modern) science without mathematics, one cannot really get started learning history without knowing names and dates. The real history comes when one is able to put those people and their arguments and evidence into a wider historical context that allows us to really get at what they were trying to do and why. I'm not surprised that most students don't know Donald Hebb (and I say that as one who attended McGill myself). What is more worrying to me is that most (even graduate) students only barely know the names of Wundt and James, and even when they do, can hardly tell you anything about who they were or what they did. Only rarely do they know names like Hull and Tolman. Watson typically fares a bit better (due to "Little Albert"). Skinner better still. After the 1960s, psychology splintered in so many different directions that students generally only know the names of the people most closely associated with "their" area. From the "formative" era of psychology, Weber, Fechner, Mueller, Stumpf, Hall, Cattell, Baldwin, Titchener, Angell, Dewey, Munsterberg, Jastrow, Scripture, Witmer, Goddard, Terman, Thorndike, Koehler, Koffka, Wertheimer, etc. all draw blank stares for the most part. (One of my favorites in this regard is David Shakow, who is probably the single most important person in the training of every (PhD) clinical psychologist in North America today, and virtually no one knows his name.)
As you say, it is, of course, important for students of psychology to learn psychological "facts" (if one can say such phrase so baldly without giggling). And I don't think it is worthwhile getting into the ancient debate about how much history the "working scientist" need know. (There is a great, classic article by Stephen Brush called "Should the History of Science Be Rated X?" (/Science/, 1974) that addresses this issue: http://tinyurl.com/ykeug52 ). But it seems to me that knowing a bit (and we are only talking about a tiny bit here) of the history of the science that one undertakes can't do any harm (if only to prevent one from going down previously explored blind alleys, and making previously-exploded invalid assumptions about what one is doing. As Santayana said (almost): Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. Santayana didn't have a logical (well, statsitical) proof of this, but I think a sketch of one would look something like this: Most of the smart people in history have come up with highly plausible explanations of the phenomena they have studied. Most of those candidate explanations, plausible as they were, have turned out to be false. When people later in history contemplate the same phenomena, they are likely to set upon the same plausible candidate explanations just because of their very plausibility. Knowing history will allow one to dismiss such explanations relatively quickly, despite their initial plausibility. Those who don't know their history, however, are more likely to commit great time and resources to pursuing the same (false) candidate explanations time and time again. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== William Scott wrote: > Fechner, schmechner. Ask the graduate students if they know who Donald Hebb > was. You'll get the same response. Maybe it's the sign of a maturing science. > It's more important to know the facts than the names of those who discovered > them. > > Or maybe it's something else. > > Bill Scott > > > >>>> "Wuensch, Karl L" <[email protected]> 10/22/09 10:26 PM >>> >>>> > I am probably the only faculty member at my institution who even > mentions Fechner in the Intro class. When I refer to Fechner with my > graduate students they give me that "WTF are you talking about" look. When I > ask who has ever heard of Fechner, not a single hand is raised. So sad. A > few will say they remember hearing of Weber, but none can comment on his > contributions to the discipline. > > Cheers, > > Karl W. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gerald Peterson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 8:20 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: [tips] Fechner Day! -- that darn date > > > Is psychophysics being taught at the undergrad level? I was introduced to > Fechner in an undergrad Exper. Psych class and then in the capstone History > and Systems class, but I don't see references to psychophysical methods in > most Experimental psych texts. I would think it would be covered in our S&P > class. I do mention Fechner and Weber in Intro tho. Gary > > > > > Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. > Professor, Department of Psychology > Saginaw Valley State University > University Center, MI 48710 > 989-964-4491 > [email protected] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Scott" <[email protected]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 5:44:39 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [tips] Fechner Day! -- that darn date > > A long time ago an old friend introduced me to the tradition of serving cake > in class on Fechner day. I recommend it. Some places can even put a photo in > the icing. Fechner's mug makes everyone take a small piece so one cake can > stretch through a large class. > > Bill Scott > > > >>>> "Christopher D. Green" <[email protected]> 10/22/09 5:28 PM >>> >>>> > The Zend-Avesta was a religious text (after a manner of speaking) by > Fechner, in which he outlined his "daylight" view of science (a kind of > pan-psychist, post-Romantic view of the world), as opposed to he called > the "twilight view" (of materialism). (The Avesta is a sacred text of > Zoroastrians, who (to a first approximation) worship the sun.) He also > wrote abook about the "soul life" of plants. > > Neither has ever been translated to my knowledge, but Michael > Heidelberger's biography of Fechner is an excellent source (if a bit > dense). > > Chris > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
