On 2014-01-28, at 11:48 AM, Claudia Stanny wrote: > > Language is powerful. Sometimes what we call things is important. Yes, it is > marketing. But there is marketing that is pure spin and marketing that > communicates substance to people who won't take the time to discover it > otherwise. I think psychology is thin-skinned about this topic because it has > sometimes harbored some silly stuff . . . as have other sciences, if we > consider some of the "dead ends" of other sciences (phlogiston is the easiest > target, cold fusion might be another, remember RNA-transfer of memories? - > psychology shares some blame for that one). The self-correcting nature of > science solves those problems (eventually). Still, the question about whether > this particular marketing misfires and undermines our credibility is worth > discussion. >
Christian Science - http://christianscience.com Creation Science - http://www.icr.org/articles/type/9/ Chiropractic Science - http://www.oztrekk.com/programs/chiropractic/PG/macquarie.php Reflexology Science - http://www.reflexology4backpain.com/ascience.html Psychic Science - http://www.psychicscience.org It's just a word. Anyone can use it. No one should be convinced that psychology is a "science" just because we stick the word in our department's name. Perhaps it expresses our commitment to being "scientific," but the word is so flexible in the first place (and so widely abused in the second), that I don't know that it tells anyone about our commitments (except that we felt compelled to add an "honorific" to our dept name, which might speak as much to insecurities as to our convictions). What is more, since the phrase "Clinical Science" is becoming increasingly popular, it doesn't really even serve to make the distinction we want it to. Perhaps "Psychological Research" would mark a distinction from "Practice", but I have never seen that used. Besides, "Research" is just as flexible and just as liable to be adopted by people we don't regard as being "serious." In any case, there are probably activities that legitimately take place in scholarly psychology departments that would only count as "science" in the broadest sense of the term. Theoretical critique? Historical research? And what about truly science-based (by whatever definition you favor) psychological assessment and therapy? Everyone is, of course, free to add to their name whatever symbolic markers they would like. But I don't think there is much long term value to be gained in waging (metaphorical) wars over such things. Words and things. Words and things. (To be fair, I feel the same way about people who insist on having "PhD" affixed after their name on APA convention name tags. I even saw a vanity license plate on a car the other day that said "PhD 68." Sheesh!) cynical Chris --- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [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=33614 or send a blank email to leave-33614-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
