At 3:22 PM -0700 9/11/00, HART_CHRISTIAN wrote:
>I tend to fall on the side of Chuck Huff; the side of humility.
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Christian about almost everything he
said in his post. And I particularly like the bit of history
regarding the vitriol surrounding the work in psychoneuroimmunology.
I must, however disagree that my side is the "side of humility." One
can encourage a virtue in others, but it is tricky to claim it for
one's own.
This morning a student in intro asked me why the textbook said it was
not simply the procedures that make for good science. She said she
had been taught in her other science courses that science WAS good
procedure. I mentioned at least three things that were hard to
classify under procedure:
1) Scientific virtues. (honesty, skepticism, respect for data,
humility, perseverance etc.)
2) Creativity. It is hard to specify a procedure for the creative
part of doing theory and designing empirical tests (though some
cognitive psych folks are working on it).
3) Other People. Science is a social process. Rather than objective,
it is really inter-subjective. I must convince other smart,
motivated folks (in the context of the virtues listed above) that the
effects I report are real and important.
So, oddly enough, the endeavor that critics say dehumanizes and
objectifies us, nevertheless depends crucially upon virtue,
creativity, and social interaction.
-Chuck
- Chuck Huff; 507.646.3169; http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/
- Psychology Department, St.Olaf College, Northfield, MN 55057
