Hi all,

Had some thoughts about psychology and just thought I’d share here to perhaps spark discussion or elicit your thoughts.

As an undergraduate, I had the opportunity to experience a broad range of classes. Though I majored in Psychology, I took a course in Modern Physics. This course was focused on general relativity and quantum mechanics. I also took a course called Philosophy and the Physics, which focused primarily on the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.

The physics course touched on what was strange about these theories, but primarily showed us how to use them. I.e., here’s an equation used to solve this problem, do repetitions of this type of problem to learn how to use it to solve similar problems using the same equation (and so on). However, it wasn’t until I took the philosophy course that I started to understand the depth of how strange quantum mechanics is. 

Essentially, I started to develop an understanding of how to effectively use quantum mechanics for solving pragmatic, real world scientific problems. But, through the philosophy course, I also gained insight into what it was missing, what was strange about it, and the deep theoretical issues that pertain to trying to even talk about it coherently.

One day I attended a colloquium held by the philosophy professor that taught my Philosophy and the Physics course. His talk referenced the measurement problem, and it was addressed to the physics department. However, rather than sparking a discussion on what the theoretical issues with understanding quantum mechanics, the physics professors quickly made it into an egotistical thing. They turned the Q and A into a discussion about their own research, but weren’t particularly interested in discussing the fact that no current theory provides a complete answer to how a measurement is made (when the wave function collapses).

I had the realization that a similar thing seems to occur in Psychology. The psychologists doing research are, effectively, doing the same thing the physicists are doing. That is, using the scientific tools and methods that we have (and are developing) to solve problems. This lies in a technical domain, largely, rather than a theoretical domain (at least in so far as the nature of the problem-solving requires a technical approach). 

I see a similar thing played out in the field of psychology as I did with physics. Though some are highly interested in the strange theoretical interpretations of the facts that we have, most are more concerned with developing their own research program. Essentially, the field at large seems to be disinterested in reconciling what we know from the science with some of the strange occurrences that we observe that can’t be answered using empirical, technical approaches. For instance, how can we reconcile the modern scientific viewpoint with the utility that religious thought has provided for thousands (and many more) years prior to when we were even capable of conducting the science that we conduct today? Most modern psychological scientists do not seem to be interested in answering this question, but instead focus on their own domain of scientific inquiry. For example, a psychological scientist that studies anxiety may ask how the impact of self-quarantine impacts self-reported anxiety. This question is measureable, observable, quantifiable, but is not concerned with how an individual’s life path and mentality may shift permanently due to anxiety about the coronavirus and behavior in self-quarantine.

Maybe these examples are poor for what I’m trying to illustrate, but I’m mostly just “thinking out loud.”

What are your thoughts? Are the philosophical and technical modes of thinking reconcilable? Are scientists actually concerned with the broader theoretical questions, but use the technical methods as the modality for understanding them? Are these really separate modalities of thinking, or are they necessarily intertwined?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Thanks for reading,

Cole