Mike Your last sentence "Because I don't particularly care about scientific psychology per se, does not mean I don't value the results." might be theoretically possible and maybe true for some individuals but I do not think it is true for most students (or non students for that matter). Not "caring" is for most students identical to "not valuing the results" - they go hand in hand. There is a tremendous amount of anti-science sentiment among students and part of that is based on not having any knowledge about scientific principles. That is, there is no reason to "care" precisely because the results are not that important/valued. So why should you value the results? You should value them because you have spend hours in methods classes (and other psychology classes) learning about concepts such as reliability, validity, random assignment, external validity, internal validity, threat to internal validity, need for replication, etc. Once you have some sense of how scientific psychology (I don't teach any other kind, by the way) works then I think you are more likely to value the results. You will also be able (hopefully) to spot pseudo science, bogus studies or unacceptable evidence. You will (should) be able to ask "does this seem likely" - "what is the evidence that is works". Think about how many bogus/dangerous/ineffective therapies could have been avoided if therapists (and others) had even an undergraduate level of understanding of research methodology. Marie
**************************************************** Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Department Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology Kaufman 168, Dickinson College Carlisle, PA 17013 Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 http://www.dickinson.edu/departments/psych/helwegm/ **************************************************** From: Michael Smith [mailto:tipsl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:23 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Relevance of science to psych work? Well, I disagree. Methods are simple in the extreme compared with the inner workings of string theory. And I think ANY intelligent person can pick up the top-rated journals and find out which theories/approaches/techniques have the backing of empiricism. Perhaps psychologists, eager to be seen as scientists, over-estimate the difficulty associated with empirical psychology. Nevertheless, most of your comments seem to center around motivation. That is, if I don't care about scientific psychology per se, then I wouldn't be interested in the results of same. But I don't think this is true. Like I said, I don't particularly care about carpentry (except maybe Japanese joinery, but I digress). However, if I want to build a bench that will last I will use the RESULTS of 'scientific' carpentry. My motiviation as a client caring clinician would be the client and my own expertise and growth. My clients needs would drive me to find the best possible solutions for their problems. Because I don't particularly care about scientific psychology per se, does not mean I don't value the results. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
