In response to my post, Jim Clark wrote:
>I believe it is a misnomer to use the descriptor "scientific" in
>this general way and to refer to both of the approaches that you
>later described as "scientific." These are more like
>epistemologies or approaches to knowledge (i.e., ways of knowing)
>rather than different variants of science. Only the objective
>approach merits the label of scientific.
I agree. The labels I used were my attempt to "be fair," but my hand quivered
as I pressed the keys on my keyboard. Perhaps a more neutral label, such as
"research tradition" or "knowledge tradition," would be better (I don't want to
use the word "epistemology" with intro students: they might break into a rash,
or even have a seizure).
>Students will wrongly believe that the "subjective" methods
>and loose theorizing typical of your "subjective" stream are in
>fact legitimate scientific approaches to knowledge. Students
>need to be disabused of that idea.
I do emphasize the importance of internal validity and stress that the
"subjective" tradition (if you only knew how many labels I have wrestled with
before settling on this one) performs research that has very little of it. As
for your other objection: of course, I am aware that "objective" psychologists
study subjective phenomena. In trying to simplify for my students, I realized
that they might get the wrong idea. I will have to think more about this: I am
trying to get across something about irrational elements of mind, and a few
other ideas, and this was my shortcut way of referring to a set of very complex
notions.
I think that it is worth it to make this attempt: my students often are
confused by the several controversies I discuss in class (facilitated
communication, MPD, repressed memories, and others). This distinction, I
believe, helps them to make sense of the controversies.
As always, thanks for your feedback,
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
