Rip Piacreta wrote:
"To me, that (i.e.,a "breakthough") would be any research that has major
clinical application, starts a discipline, or generates a reformulation of
basic tenets of a field."
I agree, Rip. But the only things I can think of that fit the bill here
would come from
a)
Pat Cabe wrote:
"I think it is very easy to overlook the incredibly short history of
psychology as a science. The 150 years of so that we acknowledge is so very
brief compared to the depth of history behind essentially all the other
"traditional" sciences."
I've got to strenuously disagree
Jim Guinee wrote:
Further, Karon suggests a formula for getting published:
1) Investigate something trivial
2) Investigate it by a technique that is well-known and frequently used
3) Find exactly what everyone would predict you would find
Mostly someone else's .02
Isn't this
Or maybe more pressure to publish- quantity vs. quality.
David Griese'
SUNY Framingdale
On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, RICHARD PISACRETA wrote:
John Kulig wrote:
(1) Signal to noise. There is so much published now, we don't notice
the few
outstanding ones.
(2) There was a theoretical vacuum
We may not have studies like Milgram and Zimbardo anymore because IRB
would never allow them and the animal rights people have certainly made
studies like Harlow's more difficult.
It may also be that there are some wonderful discoveries out there, but we
are so flooded with information that we
Two quick thoughts:
Sometimes "classic" work is not immediately recognizable. For example,
Watson's paper on behaviorism was not cited much for the first few years
after it was published.
There seems to be very little reliance on theory in current Psychology.
Certainly there is very little that
John Kulig wrote:
(1) Signal to noise. There is so much published now, we don't notice
the few
outstanding ones.
(2) There was a theoretical vacuum earlier this century that has
disappeared.
When Tolman did some of his cognitive map studies, or J.B. Watson did
Little
Albert, this was
In a message dated 3/6/99 11:20:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip . . .
I am not saying
that this kind of work has no value. It seems that there is a lack of
imagination out there these days.
Rip Pisacreta, Ph.D.
Professor, Psychology,
Ferris
al Message-
From: Pollak, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tips (post) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, March 06, 1999 11:27 AM
Subject: where are the new discoveries?
At the risk of sounding too chauvinistic I think I can answer this one:
They're in the physiological, biopsych, and evolutionary psyc
It occurred to me recently that the bulk of the classic pubs, studies,
theories are from decades ago. Even a new book I received recently
called something like "20 experiments that shook the world" lists work
from 1890 to about 1967. Why aren't there any giants anymore? Major
breakthroughs
RICHARD PISACRETA wrote:
It occurred to me recently that the bulk of the classic pubs, studies,
theories are from decades ago. Even a new book I received recently
called something like "20 experiments that shook the world" lists work
from 1890 to about 1967. Why aren't there any giants
John Kulig wrote:
(1) Signal to noise. There is so much published now, we don't notice the few
outstanding ones.
(2) There was a theoretical vacuum earlier this century that has disappeared.
When Tolman did some of his cognitive map studies, or J.B. Watson did Little
Albert, this was
Gee, must be Friday, quitting time because I am using up my week's
quota of replies..
As for Becky's point 4, I only partly agree, because in cognition
we have so many classics from the 1960's but really only Rumelhart
McClellands' neural net stuff strikes me as a clear "classic" to be
and
I really like John's comments, especially 1 3: The signal to noise
ratio is tremendous--the publish or perish culture is drowning us in
disconnected microresearch--which is another element of the inability
to detect a classic paper.
As for #3: talk about the typical undergrad being out of it,
14 matches
Mail list logo
