I think this is a good way to begin the H/Systems class, and I also find
that many of the students still don't get it. I am thinking of developing
some refresher lectures/demos on these topics. Stanovich's book may be
useful here in the capstone class, and anticipating the kinds of naive,
mundane objections to psych science that the students have might help. For
example, discuss what we have learned about topics that people assume can't
be studied (love, sex, emotion, thinking, judgment) by utilizing a
scientific approach. Handout some research papers and show what has been
done (this also helps them practice reading research, reinforce the
experimental/research methods classes, etc.). Disabuse them of the appeal
to absolutistic conceptions of Truth, Cause, which plague the
novice/layperson and reinforce the conceptions of probablistic, tentative
statements that characterize good science. Discuss the fact that our most
reliable knowledge of the world--including human behavior, feelings,
thoughts, etc., still has come from the tentative, questioning approach of
science. Anyway, you get the idea. I think they need a renewed
appreciation of knowledge painstakingly developed. I have another request:
I have the students develop a major paper in the History and Systems
class, but frequently find they have trouble doing anything more than
listing a chronology (and, sometimes merely "lifting") and repeating what
they read. I want to help them develop their own thinking about that
history or aspect of the field. Has anyone some tips on this? Perhaps, a
different paper outline? I am thinking of using papers from a history
journal or perhaps psych review? for models to give them an idea of what can
be done. They are expected to develop a final oral/ or poster presentation
of this paper, but I find the papers really lack insight. Perhaps, a
different kind of paper? Any ideas appreciated, Gary Peterson
Gerald (Gary) L. Peterson, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1-517-790-4491
>To provide another take on this issue.....
>I teach History of Psychology to our senior psychology majors--it is
>required as a "capstone" class. At the beginning of the semester we talk
>about what it means to say that psychology is a science, and we talk about
>their conceptions of science and why they might or might not believe that
>psych is a science. We read several articles on philosophy of science,
>talked about determinism, the mind/body problem, and then did a semester of
>history during which I continuously pointed out how psychology worked to
>establish itself as an empirical fied.
>
>Well, guess what? Yesterday, last class, I brought up the question again.
>Most of the students believe that psychology isn't "really a science"
>because "humans are too variable and you can't ever really understand what
>causes behavior" and "humans have too many choices". So what are we doing
>here folks? I feel like everthing I've said has rolled off their backs ( I
>also teach child development, in which I emphasize empiricism/scientific
>approach).
>
>If we can't convince psych majors that psychology is a science, is there
any
>hope of convincing the world at large?
>
>Feeling discouraged.......
>
>Kris Lewis
>Saint Michael's College
>Colchester VT
>
>> ----------
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Monday, April 26, 1999 10:14 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: IS psychology a science?
>>
>> 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]
>>
