Jim Clark wrote:
> [B]elow are a small sampling of the readily
> attainable quotes that critique the methods of science. Having
> spent far too much time over the past 20 years reading critiques
> of science like this, I can affirm that the challenges are very
> deep (although vacuous)....
Although coming at this issue from a slightly different (but closely related)
approach, we should not forget the views of those who promote "alternative ways
of knowing" (AWKs). My favorite book promoting AWKs is _Transpersonal Research
Methods for the Social Sciences: Honoring Human Experience_ by William Braud
and Rosemarie Anderson (1998). In some ways, it represents a more subtle
critique of science than some of the people Jim quotes. This is because the
book's authors claim to accept the methods of conventional science when the
goal is to answer questions about the natural world. When studying human
experience, on the other hand, they believe that we need to expand our view of
what we consider to be acceptable research methodology. With such an expanded
view, they argue, we could study "scientifically" various phenomena associated
with spirituality and other specifically human activities and experiences.
Nevertheless, regardless of their claim to appreciate traditional scientific
methodology for certain questions, when taken as a whole, their advocation of
AWKs represents a fundamental critique of science. One could choose virtually
any page for examples of this. Here are some:
"Any and all sources of evidence, ways of knowing, and ways of working with and
expressing knowledge, findings, and conclusions can be brought to bear on the
issues being researched.... There is an epistemological stance of what William
James...called _radical empiricism_--a stance that excludes anything that is
not directly experienced but includes _everything_ that is directly
experienced, by anyone in the research effort. Thus, the research participants'
subjective experiences and self-perceptions are treated as valid data, as are
the experiences and perceptions of the investigator. There is an important
place for intuitive, tacit, and direct knowing; for various ARATIONAL ways of
processing information; and for a variety of forms of creative expression in
conducting and communicating research." (emphasis added; p. 241)
"Largely abandoned by the psychologies of quantification in particular, vast
domains of rich human experiences [examples would be love, imagination,
intuition, altered states of consciousness, and mystical experiences] seem
ignored by conventional psychology.... Psychology is, after all, the study of
human behavior and experience, including their fullest expressions. Methods
falling short of including 'the farther reaches of human nature' fail to
explore the fulness of being alive here and now in this extraordinary
experience called daily life.... Regrettably, research in transpersonal
psychology has often seemed stymied by reliance on the experimental methods it
inherited from the dominant psychologies of the 1960s and 1970s.... [With
respect to research methods, the] essential qualities proposed here place
attributes such as intuition, compassion, immediate apprehension of meaning,
and service to society's disenfranchised persons as central to scientific or
empirical inquiry in psychology. [New Paragraph] It is recommended that
investigators-researchers incorporate the features, skills, and procedures of
intuitive inquiry into other forms of research, including conventional
behavioral research. Much of what is proposed here is simply good science (if
only we would do it)" (p. 70)
"The principle of sympathetic resonance introduces resonance as a validation
procedure for the researcher's particular intuitive insights and syntheses. The
principle suggests that research can function more like poetry in its capacity
for immediate apprehension and recognition of an experience spoken by another
and yet (surprisingly and refreshingly, perhaps) be true for the researcher, as
well. The procedures, insights, data analysis, and synthesis of transpersonal
research may begin to approach the borders of understanding and communication
that seem more like poetry than like conventional empirical science as we have
known it in the 19th and 20th centuries. Describing the richness and fullness
of human experience may require the use of metaphors, similes, and symbols."
(p. 73)
That may be true, but should we call that "science"? Well, I could go on like
this all day. Let me just present to you their comparison of the "prevailing
scientific paradigm" with their "alternative scientific paradigm"--the latter
being the one they would like science to incorporate (I have adapted the
following from a table that they present on page 12). Note, by the way, that
when the word "truth" is used, it appears in scare quotes:
PREVAILING SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM:
(1) Monolithic, "truth" viewed as universal and singular (i.e., "one truth");
denies the validity and value of alternative world views, value systems,
methodologies.
(2) Mechanistic, reductionistic, rationalistic; analytical atomism regarded as
the only fully creditable approach
(3) Fragmented/fragmenting
(4) Objective; observer regarded as "detached"; subject/object dichotimized;
dualistic
(5) Cognitive; excludes and disparages emotions, feelings, passions; claims to
be neutral and value-free; "hard" is superior to "soft"
(6) Aristotelian; categorical; dualistic; opposites imply right/wrong;
conflict; antagonistic
(7) Argument; certainty; clarity
(8) Discontinuous; linear
(9) Closed, authoritarian, competitive
(10) Absolute ("right answer")
(11) Elitist; individualistic
(12) Secretive
(13) Arcane
(14) Hierarchical
(15) Arrogant
(16) Alienated/alienating
(17) Morally/ethically "neutral"; socio-culturally separate; "uninvolved"
(18) Jargon isolates "experts" from rest of society
ALTERNATIVE SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM:
(1) Pluralistic; "truth" is acknowledged to reflect the vantage point of the
observer; open to alternative ways of knowing
(2) Balances mechanistic/reductionistic, rational approaches with organismic,
holistic, intuitive, experimental ones
(3) Interconnected/unifying
(4) Interactive; scientist is both an observer and a participant
(5) Harmonizes and integrates feminine and masculine qualities; recognizes
humanity as part of the natural world; "hard" and "soft" are equally acceptable
(6) Multiplex; complementary; both/and dialectical thinking; dynamic; "the
opposite of a deep truth is another deep truth"
(7) Co-operative dialogue; accepts uncertainty; tolerates ambiguity, fuzziness;
process-oriented
(8) continuous; cyclical; helical
(9) Open, dialectical, co-operative
(10) Perspectival; relative; multipartiality
(11) Egalitarian; consensual
(12) Open
(13) Participatory
(14) Democratic (entails co-operative dialogue both across disciplines and
between science and society)
(15) Humble
(16) Liberating
(17) Morally/ethically committed; involved
(18) Language/concepts generally accessible/comprehensible
--
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
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
“No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.”
Lily Tomlin
Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS)
http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html
