On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, G. Marc Turner wrote:
>
> Okay, so you don't mean to imply that one form is better than another, but
> that methodologies and perspectives of the West are not superior. So, you
> are saying that different methodologies and perspectives are equally valid
> and work equally well at determining the "truth" about natural laws (both
> physical and psychological)?
I am not referring to the natural laws or physical laws only to
Psychology.
> If so, then I would like you to clarify exactly what these perspectives and
> methodologies are from both the West and the non-eurocentric cultures you
> refer to. Are we talking about case studies versus experimental designs?
> Naturalistic observations versus experiments? Belief based approaches to
> knowledge versus empirical methods?
There is a tendency in Western scientific tradition to
hold all other variables constant while isolating the assumed
critical variable.
Whereas the isolation of variables can lead to conclusions of
cause-effect relationships (in the lab) and be internally
valid,some question can be raised about the external validity
since the isolated variable may or may not be act in the same way
in the compounded and complex stimulus configuration from which it was
extracted.
> Also, what do you think should be done if the different methods end up
> giving different answers for the same population of interest? Do you then
> have to throw up your hands and say that it is not possible to answer the
> question?
>
Maybe,it tells us more about the methodologies than the populatio.
Btw,one guideline for critical thinking is to tolerate uncertainty.
Michael Sylvester
Daytona Beach,Florida
