Hi
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, G. Marc Turner wrote:
> At 01:46 AM 6/16/1999 -0500, you wrote:
> >> So, science is defined by the content (i.e., knowledge it encompasses, the
> >> facts and figures, etc) not by the process?
> >
> >I'm not too certain whether "defined by" is the proper wording.
> >I guess I would say that science _is_ both the content and the
> >process. So in making claims about whether or not science has
>
> So, for a point of clarification, chemistry/physics/biology could be said
> to be more scientific than psychology because of their content? In fact,
> depending on what you label as scientific content, psychology might not be
> a science at all! Afterall, it isn't just the method, it's the content?
I would agree that those disciplines are more scientific than
psychology, largely because of our different stages of
development. The natural sciences have been more successful than
psychology at purging themselves of nonscientific elements
(methodological and content-related) that hinder scientific
progress. This probably has to do with the fact that psychology
hits much closer to home when we adopt a strict scientific
orientation (e.g., it comes into deeper conflict with religious
and other established beliefs). Moreover, the fact that
psychology has not yet purged non-scientific influences means
that much of its content is in fact not science-based. And I
would say that situation is likely to continue and perhaps even
worsen unless we more fully commit ourselves and our students to
the scientific study of human behavior and experience. I
shouldn't have to point out on this list that much of what people
think of when they think "psychology" is in fact nonscientific
and perhaps even antiscientific (Dr. Laura comes to mind,
probably because I saw yesterday she has a new book out
advocating her spiritual approach to psychology).
> Something tells me this isn't where you were trying to go with
> your argument, but it is where I see it leading if you aren't
> careful.
I have absolutely no trouble going in that direction because it
is for me fundamental to the questions being debated here. What
do we want psychology as a discipline to mean to our students and
society? Do we want it to include purported knowledge about
people based on all kinds of foundations, with science _not_
being a _better_ way of understanding people, with science just
being one of many approaches to valid understanding (i.e., the
pluralistic epistemology approach)? Or do we want psychology to
mean scientifically-validated knowledge about human behavior and
experience?
Being the dogmatic, narrow-minded, arrogant, intolerant type that
I am, I opt for the science perspective. Or rather, opting and
advocating for the science perspective makes me appear dogmatic,
narrow-minded, arrogant, and intolerant in some people's minds
(Although responding to Marc's post, I'm not attributing such
interpretations to him).
To harken back to a discussion several years ago now, I would
just point out that in Perry's (admittedly tentative) scheme of
adult intellectual development, relativism was _not_ the most
advanced stage of development. Some few undergraduates advanced
further to a stage of reasoned commitment that Perry did not make
the mistake of confusing with earlier stages of black-white,
right-wrong thinking. Justified pride and commitment are not the
same as unthinking dogmatism and intolerance, no matter how
similar their manifestations might be. And leaving undergraduate
students believing in pluralistic and relativistic views of
knowledge is not, in my view, admirable nor justifiable, except
perhaps on the grounds of short-sighted compassion. That is why,
although I often reflect during these discussions about their
appropriateness for this list, I think that they do go to the
heart of what we do as teachers. What is the view that we
present to our students about the value of a scientific
orientation to psychology, not only in and of itself, but also in
the grander scheme of our students' lives? And does false
humility and misguided sensitivity lead us to lose our brief
opportunity (one or two years out of many people's lives) to
instill some appreciation of and convictions about science as
methods of knowing and well-founded beliefs that transcend
culture, religion, and other such interests?
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
