On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Louis_Schmier wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Steven Davis wrote:
>
> > I tell my classes that while both may examine similar content areas, the
> > methods of each are different. Psychology is based on systematic
> > empiricism, while philosophy is based on logic.
> >
>
> So, psychology is illogical? :-))
>
My interpretation, and what I tell my students, is that psychology uses
the scientific approach, which is a combination of logic and empiricism.
The logic is in the theories and hypothesis formation, while the
empiricism lies in the data collection and testing of hypotheses. If the
data supports the hypothesis we can draw inferences regarding the theory.
If the data does not support the hypothesis, we circle back to the logic
(rationalism) stage to reconsider the hypothesis and underlying theory.
Philosophy often lacks the empiricist component, rendering it
nonscientific.
For example:
I am a psychologist.
All psychologists are human.
All living humans bleed if poked with a needle.
Therefor, I bleed when poked with a needle.
This is where logic (philosophy, in this case) ends. Empiricism
(psychology) goes further:
I was poked with a needle this morning (blood donation).
I bled.
Therefor, I am a:
a) psychologist (invalid logic).
b) human (valid deduction).
c) blood donor (according to the minor premise).
The hypothesis (I bleed when poked with a needle) was supported given the
results of the empirical test.
If I accept the premise that philosophers are humans too, then they should
bleed when poked with a needle. Philosophers would leave it at that. But
since I'm a psychologist, I would need empirical evidence to confirm that
hypothesis. And since I'm pro-blood donation, I encourage all
psychologists to help me assess the external validity of the conclusion!
-Max
Maxwell Gwynn, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology (519) 884-0710 ext 3854
Wilfrid Laurier University
Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3C5 Canada
