Well, Deborah did have 'prove' in quotes, indicating (I think) that we should take it in the non-specialized way of understanding. That is, something would be 'proven' if we could say: given A then B is always true. But this is what psychology cannot say. For example, given a person is at a funeral, and the deceased was a close relative, they will always cry. Compared to the certainty of natural science; given a material above a certain temperature and in the presence of oxygen, it will always combust.
And it is that degree of certainty that is missing from the pronouncements of psychology. Also, if all that can be said in science is that a given proposition is more or less likely (ignoring a probability of one), then how do we "know" that the current refutations of the misconceptions surrounding memory, or sugar highs, or what-have-you are any more than merely the current misconception? Perhaps most things studied are probabilistic in nature, but if so, then the natural sciences can state their laws with a much closer proximity to 1 than can psychology. Indeed, psychological "laws" are few and far between and generally don't address what people are interested in when the talk about psychology being able to "explain" human behavior (ignoring things like Fechner's law which most people would probably not consider worth explaining unless one designs amplifiers). --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1043 or send a blank email to leave-1043-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
