To provide another take on this issue.....
I teach History of Psychology to our senior psychology majors--it is
required as a "capstone" class. At the beginning of the semester we talk
about what it means to say that psychology is a science, and we talk about
their conceptions of science and why they might or might not believe that
psych is a science. We read several articles on philosophy of science,
talked about determinism, the mind/body problem, and then did a semester of
history during which I continuously pointed out how psychology worked to
establish itself as an empirical fied.
Well, guess what? Yesterday, last class, I brought up the question again.
Most of the students believe that psychology isn't "really a science"
because "humans are too variable and you can't ever really understand what
causes behavior" and "humans have too many choices". So what are we doing
here folks? I feel like everthing I've said has rolled off their backs ( I
also teach child development, in which I emphasize empiricism/scientific
approach).
If we can't convince psych majors that psychology is a science, is there any
hope of convincing the world at large?
Feeling discouraged.......
Kris Lewis
Saint Michael's College
Colchester VT
> ----------
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 10:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: IS psychology a science?
>
> Annette Taylor posted a wonderful update describing how she attempted to
> explain the scientific aspects of psychology to the chemistry instructor
> who
> saw psychology as being unscientific. Nevertheless, in a second post, she
> seemed to take it all back by stating the following:
>
> > Science used to be defined in Popperian terms, as an enterprise with
> > its goal as prediction and control. Chaos theory thoroughly destroyed
> > that notion. Complex systems are unpredictable.
>
> Science is based on the notion that general principles describing
> predictable
> relationships can be constructed. I still am not very familiar with chaos
> theory, but I would be surprised if the goals of prediction and control
> have
> been "thoroughly destroyed" by it. If this is true, I (for one) will have
> to
> change how I teach my classes. I have two questions: (1) Can you explain
> how
> chaos theory has done this? And, (2) if it has, what do you now teach in
> your
> classes?
>
> You also wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, what the sociologists of science have had to say is
> > probably more accurate than we would want to admit. Science is the term
> > used by whoever has or wants the dominant share of resources. The terms
> > "not scientific" is simply a heuristic meaning "I am not interested in
> > what you do. Therefore you deserve no resources.
>
> Thus, we apply the term "scientific" only to those things we are
> interested in
> and, because of this, wish to give resources to. Although I am sure that
> this
> assertion can explain what was going on with the ignorant chemistry
> instructor
> at your school (i.e., she was telling you she was not interested in
> psychology
> by putting it in a nonscience section), you attempted tp correct her
> ignorance by pointing out for her what science is and how psychology
> often does satisfy its requirements. This attempt presupposes that you
> must
> accept the existence of a set of foundational attitudes and procedures for
> doing science. I have a third question: (3) How do you reconcile this
> belief
> (that science involves certain attitudes and procedures) with the belief
> implied
> in the above passage that science has no such attitudes and
> procedures--that it
> simply refers to activities which interest us?
>
> Jeff Ricker
> Scottsdale Community College
> Scottsdale AZ
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
