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) neurochemistry/psychopharmacology (i.e., clinical applications) or b) E.O. Wilson, et al. with Sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology (starts a new discipline). or c)Garcia's learned aversions (generates a reformulation of basic tenets of a field). But the interesting point is that a, b, & c are all within the realm of evolutionary psychology and biopsych as I had originally suggested. I'm an unrepentant reductionist who believes that true breakthroughs allow psychologists to talk to biologists (i.e., the next level down). We can talk about the "cognitive revolution" but IMNSHO, The real breakthroughs come when cognitive mechanisms can be related to physiological mechanisms , e.g., cognitive neuropsych. Unfortunately for most of us, a fair proprtion of the most interesting research comes from research tools like PET scanners that are beyond the reach of most of us. Technological breakthroughs powered many (if not most) of the recent breakthroughs in chemistry, physics & biology. Is it possible that breakthroughs in psychology have been retarded by our lack of access to big, powerful hardware? When we think of "big science" we think of cyclotrons and PET scanners. Granted that those tools can generate a lot of trivial data but such expensive toys could also help us find our "breakthroughs." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Office (610)436-2945 Professor and Chairperson Home (610)363-1939 Department of Psychology FAX (610)436-2846 West Chester University [EMAIL PROTECTED] West Chester, PA 19383 www.wcupa.ed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, biopsychologist and bluegrass fiddler........... not necessarily in order of importance. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
