Hi
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Jeff Ricker wrote:
> Because many people believe that, although a natural-science approach is
> excellent for understanding the physical world, it is very limited when
> we apply it to research on humans. They believe that other approaches
> involving a transcendent realm (i.e., the supernatural) are necessary
> for understanding human nature. It seems self-evident to them that we
> must consider something other than physical processes if we wish to
> understand the most fundamental aspects of the human mind and human
> experiences. 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.
But at one time, of course, the same criticisms that psychology
still faces were indeed a problem for the physical sciences.
That is, people once believed it was necessary to posit
supernatural forces to explain natural events (storms, the stars,
...). Only by a long and arduous battle did science eventually
dismiss these "demons" because they were no longer necessary (to
most educated people) to explain the working of the world.
Psychologists committed to science need to appreciate that we are
still in the age of Copernicus and Galileo when it comes to
viewing human experience and behaviour scientifically and to
developing mechanistic models that eliminate the need for
non-physical (i.e., supernatural) elements.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
