The tremendous growth of cognitive science as a way of studying intelligent
behavior provides tremendous support for Phillippe's claim that philosophy
still has a critical function. Those of us who consider themselves
cognitive scientists have realized that there is much to be learned from a
multidisciplinary approach. The fact that there are psychology departments
becoming cognitive science departments indicates there is considerable
support to the expected contributions from philosophy.
All of the responses in this thread have asserted, as Phillipe stated
"philosophy appears to be the ground and soil out of which psychology has
grown." I have a bit of a different take on that. We can't deny that the
approach to studying many of the questions that we would now say defines
psychology were initially addressed by philosophers. It appears to me that
it was the work of the 19th century physiologists that really set the stage
for psychology emerging as an independent science. Although we give credit
to Wundt for establishing the first psychology laboratory, Donders, Muller,
Weber, Fechner, Helmholtz were the ones conducting the first psychological
experiments. They all came from either a medical or physiological
background. Without their contributions would psychology have developed as
an independent science?
Gary J. Klatsky, Ph. D.
Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University (SUNY) http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 312-3474
-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Gervaix [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 3:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: psychology vs philosophy
Funny how there seems to be such a consensus (for once - except for Louis'
Schmier so far) among psychologists as to the distinction and definition or
both fields.
One or two remarks though, worth my two cents as a graduate in both fields.
Fisrt, I must say that the debate between both is far from closed for me,
and a training both in philosophy and psychology doesn't give anyone's
position a higher status.
The definitons given have all been given in the singular, as though there
was one recognised and admitted definition of what psychology and what
pohilosophy is. It would be clearer to me if we admitted that the
definitions given are those of scientific psychology on the one hand and of
analytic philosophy on the other. There are, beside these, other
definitions, referring to different fields, traditions, trends, schools, in
each of these disciplines.
Both disciplines havce been presented in such a way that philosophy appears
to be the ground and soil out of which psychology has grown, but then
acquiered its (alleged) independance ... by its allegence (!) to natural
sciences. This leads us to the debate between naturalistic sciences and
human/social sciences, which is still unresolved and much more complicated
than what an analytical/logical position would have us believe.
The question is further deepened when we get onto epistemological grounds.
What assures us that when we define psychology as an empiral rational
investigation, we are not already taking an epistemological stand that is
far from "factual" or empirical, or at least pretty much biased?
It is true that philosophy has lost ground in the past two centuries, and
that the reaction of philosophers has been (to put it simply) either to take
refuge in a "higher" position so as to fall back on ontological/speculative
grounds or to take an arbitral (epsitemological) position so as to remain
the "queen" of sciences, untouched and spottless.
In the defense of philosophy, it seeems to me that philosophy does still
have a critical function -whether within or from outside the field of
science, depending on the level at which we debate (praxis-level or
epistemological-level). On the the main goals of philosophy throughout
history has been the quest and the question of the ground or roots of human
thinking. Whether be it with Socrates, Descartes, Kant, Husserl, or more
recently with analytical philosophy or phenomenology, the question
ultimately comes down to the conditions of possibility and the means by
which science is possible or is realised.
So the debate should at least be between two disciplines trying to exert a
mutual critical dialogue...
Sorry for being so long, but snow-break over here...
Phil Gervaix
Switzerland
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
