Yesterday, someone on PsychTeacher asked a question about changing the name of his dept from "Psychology" to "Psychological Sciences." I was reminded of the old adage, "Any discipline that needs 'science' in its name isn't one," and I said so. A number of people responded, some on the list, some through back channel. Last night, I offered this explanation (below), but the PsychTeacher gate keepers thought it was argumentative and insulting (their words) and refused it. I had thought it was the opposite of that, but chacun à son goût.
I repost it here, for those of you who are on that other list, and wondered whether I was serious. Chris ....... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo Begin forwarded message: > From: Christopher Green <[email protected]> > Date: January 28, 2014 at 12:32:07 AM EST > To: Society for Teaching of Psychology PsychTeacher > <[email protected]> > Subject: Fwd: [PSYCHTEACHER] Changing Dept. name from Psychology to > Psychological Science > > Earlier today I wrote: > >> >> All I can think of is the old saying, "Any discipline that needs 'science' >> in its name, isn't one." > > There has been a bit more blowback than I expected. Note, I didn't say it was > an immutable truth, only that I was reminded of it. When I first heard the > expression, I was doing graduate "cognitive science," and reflexively thought > "They can't mean us!" Then one day I saw a poster for a graduate program in > "pastoral science," and I laughed and laughed. Just the way those in biology > laughed at me, and those in chemistry laughed at those in the "biological > sciences," and so forth. > > Things don't have to be literally true to make one productively reflect on > one's claims and, perhaps more important, on the academic insecurities that > make one react defensively to a harmless joke. I understand why a > "laboratory" department wouldn't want to be confused with a "clinical" > department, but I also know a bit of the history of the field, and that > knowledge makes me sometimes giggle at our modern turf battles. Wundt didn't > call his psychology "physiological" because he thought he was doing > physiology. He called it that in order to borrow for his new approach to > psychology the aura of successes that "modern" German experimental physiology > had achieved in the pervious few decades (while simultaneously borrowing > their lab equipment). "Physiology" was the fashionable academic word of the > age. There were "physiological" ethics and "physiological" aesthetics at the > time too, so-named for the same reason. It was marketing, pure and simple. > And it worked. Wundt and his lab were so successful in placing graduates in > philosophy chairs around Germany that the traditional philosophers were > driven to present a petition to the Minister of Education to have it stopped. > The German government responded by creating separate Psychology departments. > > It is the same with our lobbying for the word "science" to be included in the > names of our departments. Both true and necessary as well as petty and > casuistic, all at the same time. > > Such is life. > > Chris > ....... > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 > > [email protected] > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > --- 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=33603 or send a blank email to leave-33603-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
