I am still pursuing lines of thought related to my recent posts. The
goal of this post is to question an assumption, made (I think) by many
of us, that impedes our ability to justify teaching psychology as a
natural science. This questionable assumption is that supernatural
causes are not subject to empirical investigation. Let me explain.
My students often wonder about supernatural events, especially as causes
of some of the phenomena we talk about in class. I emphasize to them
that, in our class, we focus on natural (material) causes of the human
mind and behavior. But most of them have religious and/or folk beliefs
that assume the existence of a supernatural god and/or supernatural
aspects of mind. It is difficult or impossible to justify to many of
them my insistence that we focus on natural processes. If I can show
them that specific examples of supernatural phenomena are hoaxes, or
that we can give a natural explanation to other specific examples that,
at first, had seemed explainable only by pointing to supernatural
causes, this does not show them that the supernatural is unnecessary for
the explanation of other specific examples. This becomes a never-ending
litany of still other examples that one has to show are explainable as
hoaxes or by natural factors. At some point, someone will hit upon one
that I can't explain. At this point, the argument from ignorance comes
into play, and they are able to sit back satisfied that their
supernatural beliefs can be retained, and that the naturalistic approach
taken in the course is severely limited. They equate my naturalistic
approach as equivalent to their supernaturalistic approach--as something
based on faith that, therefore, cannot be supported with evidence
outside of "personal experience" (anecdotes and intuition).
In fact, there are a number of natural scientists who seem to believe
that blind faith in natural philosophy is required among scientists. For
example, Mark Cartmill, the president of the American Association of
Physical Anthropologists, has stated that natural scientists have never
justified on rational grounds their assumption that there is no
supernatural realm that can have effects in the physical world: "Many
scientists are atheists or agnostics who WANT to believe that the
natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try
to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief.
It's an honorable belief, but it isn't a research finding" (quoted on p.
92 of Larson & Witham, 1999; emphasis added). Cartmill is making the
accusation that those who assume naturalism--the philosophical doctrine
that states that everything is the result of natural (physical)
processes--of being motivated by a faith in naturalism and not simply by
the making of a valid inference from the findings of scientific
research. In other words, natural scientists are no different, according
to Cartmill, from those who in believe in a supernatural realm of
existence. This is a damning criticism of science and scientists since
it implies that natural science is fundamentally equivalent to religion:
blind faith is required if one is to become a scientist. Is it true?
No, it is not. In psychology as a natural science, we are engaged in the
scientific study of "human nature." In other words, we are using the
scientific method (which assumes the doctrine of determinism) to
investigate the aspects of mind and behavior that are caused by natural
processes. Since the only known natural processes are material ones, the
basic assumption of scientific psychology is materialism. But this does
not need to be the case. We could ask ourselves the following question:
are there any aspects of mind and behavior that are NOT caused by
natural processes? To be more specific, is there a human "supernature"
that is caused by supernatural processes. The discipline that studied
such phenomena would probably still make an assumption of determinism,
but the fundamental causes studied would be supernatural ones. Such a
discipline would not be outside the bounds of science. Scientists could
still investigate supernatural causes with the limitation that they must
have effects in the material world. In this regard, Taner Edis (1998)
stated:
"[W]e could have a research program devoted to validating supernatural
claims. Our religious and folk beliefs involve ... claims about a
fundamentally _personal_ reality irreducible to a material world. This
personal reality [according to these beliefs] underlies our everyday
existence. We, a peculiar union of mind and body, reside in between.
However, [these religious and folk beliefs suggest that] personality and
purpose is [sic] the more fundamental reality, creating and causing the
material. This deeper reality [according to these beliefs] occasionally
breaks through in events of "mind-over-matter." Saints levitate,
psychics bend spoons. We can investigate claims of supernatural realms,
and we can do this with a working hypothesis that there is magic in the
world." (p. 58)
Thus, the supernatural is not off limits to a scientific approach. We
should be able to get evidence for such a realm that does not involve
simply personal experience or intuition--that is, faith. The fact that
we do not have such a science cannot be due to purely sociological
reasons (i.e., that scientists as a group are biased against such
explanations and, therefore, that they force believers in the
supernatural into other occupations): I, for one, would be very happy
and excited to pursue such investigations if I had any evidence that
they could be successful. And that is the point: we do not have any good
scientific evidence for these beliefs; and that is why psychology has
developed into a natural science, not a supernatural one.
Perhaps I am preaching to the choir, but I think not (as indicated by
some of the off-list comments I have received as well as the comment by
Mark Cartmill quoted above). Anyway, I simply am trying to work through
a justification that would make sense to my students. That is, the
question I am trying to develop a good answer for is this: Does the
assumption of a natural-science approach demand blind faith?
Jeff
Reference:
Edis, T. (1998). Taking creationism seriously: Are skeptics answering
creationists effectively? _Skeptic_, _6_ (No. 2), 56-65.
Larson, E. J., & Witham, L. (September, 1999). Scientists and religion
in America. _Scientific American_, _281_ (No. 3), 88-91.
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"No one can accept the fundamental hypotheses of scientific psychology
and be in the least mystical."
Knight Dunlap
