History and systems of psychology

1. History and systems of psychology Introduction

2. “Psychology is a very old science…” • Titchener, A Primer of Psychology (1914) In full “Psychology is a very old science; we have a complete treatise from the hand of Aristotle. But the experimental method has only recently been adopted by psychologists.”

3. Key questions as we begin… • What are looking for in a history of psychology? • What exactly is psychology? • What is science and is psychology a science? • What does it mean for psychology to be a science if so?

4. The Idea of History • History as simple chronology? • Is history primarily the ordering of events, with causal links determined by where an event falls on the timeline? • History has to be more • Facts occur in a context as well as an order • It involves interpretation to determine the why (if even possible), and critical inquiry to determine that one theory is more viable than another • History cannot be a science, but it is scientific • Gather information, determine what’s relevant, weed out inappropriate models, avoid bias • End results are theories to explain the facts of history • Compare with science’s theories to explain the facts of experience

5. The Idea of Science • If psychology is considered a science, its history will reflect that. • What are the Objectives of Science? • Description • Prediction • Explanation

6. What are the Techniques of Science? • Observation yields Description. • Correlation and Experimentation yield Prediction • Attempt to identify cause and effect. • Explanations (theories) are statements about cause and effect relationships.

7. What can be known? • Differing ideas about what constitutes science and what can be known • Positivists • Verification • Popper • Falsifiability • Kuhn’s • paradigms • Lakatos’ • research program • Feyerabend • Anything goes

8. Logical Positivism • Asserts that statements are meaningful only insofar as they are verifiable, and that statements can be verified only in two (exclusive) ways: empirical statements, including scientific theories, which are verified by experiment and evidence; and analytic truth, statements which are true or false by definition, and so are also meaningful. • The verifiability theory of meaning • Statements are true in as far as they are empirically verifiable • The correspondence theory of truth • The meaningfulness of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world

9. Popper • Science starts with recognition of a problem, problem determines what observations are to be made. • Propose solutions, find fault with solutions, refutations. • Thus science involves problems, theories (proposed solutions), and criticism. • Scientific theory must be refutable – principle of falsifiability. • All theories will eventually be replaced by more adequate theories. • Science is unending search for better solutions to problems or better explanations of phenomena. • Note that Popper’s view is that a scientific theory is one that is falsifiable, but that non-falsifiable theories have the capacity to be both meaningful and possibly evolve into falsifiable ones

10. Kuhn • Brings the psychology to science • Paradigm • ”the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques,and so on shared by the members of a given scientific community.” • Normal science is likened to puzzle solving and is guided by the restrictions of the paradigm • E.g. Cold fusion research ‘not allowed’ • Researchers become emotionally involved with the paradigm and science becomes a subjective enterprise. • Paradigms change (shift) as observations cannot be explained by the current paradigm. • Science progresses as scientists are forced to change their paradigms.

11. Kuhn • Stages of scientific development • Prescientific stage – many rival schools of explanation with random fact gathering. • Eventually one school succeeds and becomes a paradigm and science continues. • Paradigmatic stage - science occurs until a new paradigm displaces the old one. • Revolutionary stage – a new paradigm displaces another one.

12. Kuhn vs. Popper • Different versions of the same science? • Kuhn: what science has been historically • Science is scientists which are psychological entities as well as logical ones • Science as a psychological venture • Note that Kuhn did not go pomo here and claim ‘everything is relative’ or assume there is no Truth, others after him did, mostly non-scientists • Popper: what science ought to be

13. Imre Lakatos • ‘Contrary to naive falsificationism, no experiment, experimental report or well-corroborated low-level falsifying hypothesis alone can lead to falsification.’ • Even Popper’s more sophisticated falsificationism doesn’t seem to really portray the way science actually works • Kuhn’s ‘mystical conversion’ from one dominant paradigm also lacking • Lakatos took on a viewpoint somewhat between Kuhn and Popper

14. Imre Lakatos • Typical unit of science is not an isolated hypothesis, but rather a research program. Contains: • Hard core • Required components (tenets) of the research program not subject to falsification i.e. must not change if program is to be maintained • Protective belt • Auxilliary hypotheses that can be shown false w/o destroying the research program • Unlike Kuhn’s normal science, research programs rarely hold dominant sway and are usually in competition until degeneration sets in when the hard core is compromised • A program without progress dies • “It is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO; rather, we propose a maze of theories and nature may shout INCONSISTENT.”

15. Paul Feyerabend • ‘Anarchist’ philosopher • “Anything goes” • Science not objective, disinterested or detached • Not superior to other types of knowledge, which also achieve reliable results • No prescribed method to which all scientists adhere • No need for (or real means of) demarcating between science and pseudoscience

16. What is psychology? • No single definition of psychology • Historically defined as the study of: • Psyche or the mind • The spirit • Consciousness • Behavior

17. What is psychology? • If no single definition, maybe we can get a sense of psych by what psychologists do • Biological correlates of mental events, including sensation, perception, memory, and ideation. • Principles that govern learning and memory • Problem solving strategies and models of human thought processes • Language development • Human development across the lifespan • Many more • Some attempt to improve the human situation through application of psychological principles • Some attempt to explain human behavior in terms of evolutionary theory • Some attempt to improve therapeutic tools • So in coming to terms with a history of psychology, we can examine the progression of thought and people that led to the myriad activities conducted by psychology today

18. Problems in the study of the history of psychology • Where to start? • Ancient man’s explanations • Early Greek philosophers • Theories of cognitive processes • When psychology became a separate science • 19th century • Wundt’s lab • What are some difficulties with these approaches?

19. Problems in the study of the history of psychology • What to include? • Historicism • study of the past without addressing the relationship between past and present • Presentism • Attempt to understand the past in terms of present knowledge and standards • What are the problems of either method? • How much detail is necessary to get a clear understanding of the evolution of concepts and ideas?

20. Problems in the study of the history of psychology • Choice of approach • Zeitgeist (spirit of the times) approach emphasizes the influences of nonpsychological factors such as political climate, technological advancements, and economic conditions on the development of psychology • Great-person approach emphasizes the works of individuals • Historical development approach illustrates how individuals and/or events contributed to changes and development of ideas and concepts

21. Problems in the study of the history of psychology • The big question is why bother? • Perspective • historical perspective allows people to view current psychological ideas in terms of contributions of historical roots through past philosophers/scientists. • Allows a more full appreciation for contemporary psychology • Deeper understanding • allows one to have a greater awareness of where psychology’s subject matter came from and why it is considered important • Recognition of fads or fashions in psychology • the ability to recognize that a current avenue of research or body of knowledge may be affected by subjective and arbitrary factors of society • “It is simply a sad fact that in soft psychology theories rise and decline, come and go, more as a function of baffled boredom than anything else; and the enterprise shows a disturbing absence of that cumulativecharacter that is so impressive in disciplines like astronomy, molecular biology and genetics “ • Paul Meehl

22. Why bother? • Avoiding repetition of mistakes • Just like any other history, being familiar with the history of psychology helps to avoid repeating the mistakes of previous researchers and practitioners • A source of valuable ideas • individuals can become familiar with earlier ideas which may have remained dormant for various reasons • Curiosity • to become familiar with the history of psychology for personal interest

23. Psychology as Science • Many in psychology are clearly engaged in the scientific endeavor to understand more about ourselves and the world we experience • Many (most?) perhaps are not • Science assumes a deterministic perspective to account for the way things are • Behavior has specific causes which may or may not be known precisely, but whatever behavior is exhibited it has an theoretically identifiable root • Biological, social etc. • Whether or not all psychologists engage in science, the discipline of psychology (and its history) can not be discussed without reference to its own scientific pursuits and those which influenced it

24. The problems of psychology • Determining human nature • How are mind and body related? • What are the roles of nature and nurture? • Determinism vs. Free will • How are we related to other species? • Objectivism vs. relativism- what is true?

25. Determining human nature • What is universally true about humans? • Many Greek philosophers we will discuss offer differing views of human nature

26. How are mind and body related? • Monists • believe in only one view, either materialist or idealist • Dualist • believe that there is both physical events and mental events • the question then is, how are they related?

27. How are mind and body related? • Monism • Materialists • matter is only reality • Most scientists • Idealists • everything consists of ideas, the nonphysical mind. • E.g. Berkeley

28. How are mind and body related? • Types of dualism • Interactionism • mind and body interact. • Epiphenomenalism • mental processes are by-products of brain processes. • Psychophysical parallelism • environmental events cause both mental events and behavior simultaneously, but they are independent of each other. • Double aspectism • humans cannot be divided into mind and body, a unity of experience. Two aspects of the same person. • Occasionalism • suggests that when a desire occurs in the mind, God causes the body to act, when events happen to the body, God causes the corresponding mental experience.

29. Free will vs. determinism • Determinism • all behavior has causal explanations. • Biological determinism • emphasizes importance of physiological and/or genetic predispositions in explanation of behavior. • Environmental determinism • emphasizes importance of environmental stimuli as determinants of behavior. • Sociocultural determinism • emphasizes cultural or societal rules, regulations, customs, and beliefs in explanations of behavior. • Some determinists explain behavior as an interaction of biological, environmental, and sociocultural factors. • Common characteristic of these three determinisms is that the determinants are measurable – physical determinism.

30. Indeterminism vs. nondeterminism • Indeterminsm • human behavior may be determined but the causes cannot (ever) be accurately measured. • Nondeterminism • some researchers reject science as a way of studying humans • Human behavior is freely chosen, self-generated • Humans have free will

31. The problem of the self • Who are we? • How is this notion constructed? • How does it maintain continuity? • How is it impacted by the outside world?

32. Universalism vs. relativism • Universalism • goal is to describe general laws and principles that govern the world and human behavior, universal truths to be discovered. • Relativism • universal truths either do not exist or, if they do, they cannot be known • Humans influence what they observe, thus, the search for universal truths independent of human existence is in vain • Truth is relative to the individual’s perspectives, no ultimate truth just truths

33. Summary • As we will see, these themes and problems, some of which have existed thousands of years, will surface time and again • Sometimes with little change, though maybe new ‘versions’ • Your goal is to solve all these problems by the end of the semester • A if you do • F if you don’t