Annette Taylor posted a wonderful update describing how she attempted to
explain the scientific aspects of psychology to the chemistry instructor who
saw psychology as being unscientific. Nevertheless, in a second post, she
seemed to take it all back by stating the following:
> Science used to be defined in Popperian terms, as an enterprise with
> its goal as prediction and control. Chaos theory thoroughly destroyed
> that notion. Complex systems are unpredictable.
Science is based on the notion that general principles describing predictable
relationships can be constructed. I still am not very familiar with chaos
theory, but I would be surprised if the goals of prediction and control have
been "thoroughly destroyed" by it. If this is true, I (for one) will have to
change how I teach my classes. I have two questions: (1) Can you explain how
chaos theory has done this? And, (2) if it has, what do you now teach in your
classes?
You also wrote:
> Unfortunately, what the sociologists of science have had to say is
> probably more accurate than we would want to admit. Science is the term
> used by whoever has or wants the dominant share of resources. The terms
> "not scientific" is simply a heuristic meaning "I am not interested in
> what you do. Therefore you deserve no resources.
Thus, we apply the term "scientific" only to those things we are interested in
and, because of this, wish to give resources to. Although I am sure that this
assertion can explain what was going on with the ignorant chemistry instructor
at your school (i.e., she was telling you she was not interested in psychology
by putting it in a nonscience section), you attempted tp correct her
ignorance by pointing out for her what science is and how psychology
often does satisfy its requirements. This attempt presupposes that you must
accept the existence of a set of foundational attitudes and procedures for
doing science. I have a third question: (3) How do you reconcile this belief
(that science involves certain attitudes and procedures) with the belief implied
in the above passage that science has no such attitudes and procedures--that it
simply refers to activities which interest us?
Jeff Ricker
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale AZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
