At 8:19 AM -0700 3/13/00, Jeff Ricker wrote:
>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:
Unfortunately, this may be true.
That is why the term 'psychology' may be too broad to designate a single
field of inquiry.
>whenever we speak of
>mental events, we are speaking of something that does not exist physically.
I don't see this as self-evident.
>No,
>science cannot be defined in terms of the physical versus the nonphysical. I
>wish it were this simple.
There's no 'versus' in the definition.
It's simply hard to have verifiable measurements of something that lacks
physical existence.
>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).
I was not aware that this followed from scientific practice.
It assumes the existence of what it's trying to prove.
>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.
We're having this discussion because not all individuals who identify
themselves as psychologists identify psychology as a science.
>Jeff
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
