G. Marc Turner wrote:
> Within the field I think most of us feel that psychology as a
> science addresses the naturalistic side of human nature and experience.
> But, the perception in the general public (and to some extent within the
> field) is that psychology should deal with ALL aspects of human nature and
> experience (both natural and supernatural).
I think the deeper problem is that we try to explain in naturalistic terms
phenomena that have traditionally been explained in supernaturalistic terms. For
example, many of us try to explain all mental events (thoughts, emotions,
perceptions, etc.) and behaviors as being caused by neural activity (mostly in
the brain). My students tend to realize the implications of such an approach for
their beliefs in a supernatural basis for their mind (i.e., that the major part
of conscious mental processes is due to "activity" of the soul).
In an earlier post, I wrote:
>>What we call science, they are arguing, must be expanded:
>>it must include methods and techniques that allow us to study this
>>transcendent realm. The natural sciences (including physics, chemistry,
>>and biology) do not need to incorporate such methods and techniques
>>because they focus on the physical.
And Paul Brandon responded:
>Again, if something is not physical it does not exist in the sense that
>science defines existence.
If this is true, then most of psychology is not science: whenever we speak of
mental events, we are speaking of something that does not exist physically. No,
science cannot be defined in terms of the physical versus the nonphysical. I
wish it were this simple.
Paul also wrote:
>Science is not defined this way -- science is a particular method of making
>specific predictions based on and verified by controlled observations.
>Scientific theories are interrelated sets of relationships which enable use
>to make predictions about a wider range of phenomena.
Yes, I agree with this. But, given this way of looking at science, there are
several fundamental issues to resolve. For example, there is the issue of what
should be the proper controls for our observations. Some of the controls are
based on past experience (such as the use of placebos) but others are the result
of ontological assumptions we make (e.g., skeptical people must not take part in
a study of the paranormal because they disturb psi). We need to be much clearer
than this about the defining characteristics of science.
What I am arguing in this post (and in another that I hope gets to you before
the end of the week) is that the matter is not as simple--not as black and
white--as some are suggesting. If it were, I don't think we would be having this
discussion.
Jeff
--
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
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
"If you want to learn new things, you should try reading old books."
Richard Cytowic
