Thanks for chiming in, Gary. Let me offer a plug for your "View From Humanity" construct. It is fascinating, and I hope the revised version is picked up by JTPP. If there is a time that you would like to lead the list through it, that would be great. And, you are correct, in the slides I shared, as I did in my presentation (which Blaine F. was also a part of), I altered the construct slightly by adding "my" and then proceeding to highlight, in what I experience to be a very direct and "empirical" (as in first person observation) way the various domains of my mind/mental activity and how they relate. So it was done somewhat in the spirit of your VFH, but attempting to bridge to a point I was trying to make about the domains of human mental behavior.
I also agree that Nancy's question about the purpose of psychology important. From my vantage point, I emphasize that basic science is best characterized by the description and explanation of behavioral complexity and change. (Note, Joe M. and I have a paper under review that details the definition of behavioral complexity I am using here). In this formulation, prediction and control are either done in the service of description and explanation in the basic sciences (as in the Large Hadron Collider) or are part of the applied sciences. Control in the services of some end must add an evaluative dimension regarding what ought to be (basic sciences have some evaluative elements, but they are less than applied sciences). As such, there is more of a moral/normative dimension to applied sciences as there is in basic sciences.
As for psychology, via the logic of the ToK System and BIT/JH analyses, I strongly advocate for considering the task of basic psychology the description and explanation of animal/mental behavior in general (this is what is often termed comparative psychology), human psychology (i.e., human behavior at the level of individual and small group), and professional psychology (the application of human psychological knowledge toward the greater good...which for me is enhancing dignity and well-being).
Best,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Brill
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What is a theory in psychology?
Gregg,
In your last post you attached some of your slides from our 2017 Division 24 Midwinter Meeting seminar (on metatheortical visions for psychology), the first of which included the phrase "My View from Humanity." I would like take this opportunity to clarify that when I coined the term "View from Humanity," I intended it to refer to a set of pre-empirical core concepts that are universal. That is, the assumptions of the "View from Humanity" are those that are undeniable by any human being (either verbally or implicitly endorsed in action). Therefore, the phrase "My View from Humanity" is misleading, at least if you want to be consistent with the usage the term was created to convey.
I have refrained from joining these TOK discussions because I am working on a revised version of my "View from Humanity" manuscript to resubmit to the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. But since I am piping up now, I will add a few comments that have come to mind in response to what has been recently posted.
I think that Nancy asks the right question: "What are psychological theories intended to do?" Many theorists, including Blaine, view psychology (and all of science) as a practice embedded in a social and historical context. Every practice is grounded on epistemological and moral assumptions (that have become the grounding because they have been successfully justified). That is, a practice is intended to accomplish a purpose assumed to be morally worthwhile via procedures that are assumed to be based on reliable knowledge. Prediction and control, as Nancy pointed out, have been the traditional purposes of the physical and biological sciences, but may be "chilling" or inhumane goals for psychological science. I suggest that prediction and control are appropriate purposes for psychology only in limited circumstances (e.g., to predict crime or to control maladaptive behaviors given the consent of the client). Most of us don't ever want to be predicted or controlled, and instead want psychology to provide us with insights and possibilities that we can agentically employ to further our own lives through our self-interpretations. Thus, depending on what one's theory (academic or folk) is being used for, it may or may not be useful/valid/appropriate for reasons to be treated as causes. For Officers A and B in your example (and for most other everyday situations) treating reasons as causes works. In scientific analysis, however, as Blaine commented, causal language is not "anywhere near sufficient to describe the human world."
So I agree with you that the metaphysics (what I would call the epistemological and moral assumptions) that precede any psychological theory should be made explicit. I wonder if John would agree with your analysis of his metaphysics as positivist and reductionist.
Best,
Gary
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
