Gary Peterson asked:
> How do others deal with
> the presentation of "theories" in class
>
To be very quick about it (I have been posting too much in the last few days),
I do try to distinguish between everyday theories, pseudoscientific theories,
and scientific theories. For example, in my intro-psych course, I state the
following:
"We all make theories about what is going on in our everyday lives. That is, we
are always constructing explanations for what is happening around us. For
example, if you see an elderly person driving slowly down the road, you
probably explain this phenomenon by inferring that the person doesnít see well
and has slow reflexes. You then pass the person and quickly drive on, satisfied
by your explanation. It could be, however, that the person is sick and is about
to pass out, or that his car is having engine trouble. This example shows some
of the differences between the sorts of theories we all develop in our everyday
lives and the theories developed by scientists. The theories of everyday life
are typically very simple, often based on stereotypes and other kinds of rigid
thinking, and are rarely tested by making further observations. The theories of
science, on the other hand, are typically complex, often based on careful
reasoning, and are generally tested by making further observations. A
scientific theory may be defined as a set of concepts and general principles,
derived from careful reasoning about a large number of observations, that are
designed to explain some phenomenon."
I then go on to explain what is meant by general principles and concepts. I use
this discussion to argue that, for example, Freudian theories do not attain the
status of "scientific theory." I think that such discussion is necessary:
students begin to get the idea that psychology is not a science because we all
seem to disagree with one another. I try to point out the some (perhaps many)
of the disagreements are due to the fact that there exist psychological
theories that are not scientific ones.
Gary Peterson wrote:
> Some of us talk about theory development in our classes or texts,
> but this goes out the window when our texts or presentations use everything
> from pop-psych ideas to social movements as exemplars of theories. As the
> term is easily misunderstood, many of us feel it better to focus on ways of
> evaluating the ideas/perspectives and how they may be _developed_ into
> viable scientific viewpoints. This can lead more easily into examining and
> differentiating empirical versus non-empirical, scientific and
> pseudoscientific "theories," as has been done with creationism versus
> evolutionary theory. While scientific theory development is sorely needed
> in our field, the integrative development and spelling-out of formal links
> between concepts appears ignored in many of the popular or controversial
> ideas we see in our journals. Evolutionary theory has become more
> paradigmatic for the biological sciences, but I doubt that psych has such
> integrative frameworks. Do such ideas from Jung, to Skinner to Harris all
> count as theories? All count as scientific theories? Or are they at
> different levels of theory development, with some more adequately
> scientific? While I try not to further befuddle my students, I usually talk
> of Jung's ideas as interesting speculation, Skinner's as illustrating more
> systematic inductive inference, and Harris' ideas as at the beginning of
> theory development (where they will probably stay). How do others deal with
> the presentation of "theories" in class? Gary Peterson
>
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
