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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

Reply via email to