Galileo
Well, now finally begin to speak from a position where we can "misunderstanding" of the good way and not simply launch boomerangs "knowledge." I appreciate your comments [about a possible science of behavior], but now we have arguments in the order of knowledge. Agree with me on the following: that a science is constituted as such, it is necessary first to define the object of an accurate, objective, which is validated independently of the observer and his instruments. The so-called scientific psychology since its inception drag a problem among many that are unable to resolve so convincing to many scientists and epistemologists, is the very formation of its scientific object. Its supposed purpose, "the observable behavior of individuals and their mental processes," is an abstraction that depends more on the point of view of an observer who does not supposed objectivity of the phenomenon. The issue is most elusive and have not yet seen someone who founded the epistemological budget with a real "scientific spirit." Watson, to talk about the one who tried, sought to define that object as a set of objectively observable adaptive reactions that an organism - usually with a nervous system - running response to stimuli - also observable - from the environment they live. Although since Watson has run a lot of ink, (introducing the notion of affect and cognition, for example), this "principle" remains valid and unchallenged as far as I know. Seen this way, can not see how psychology could serve as a science distinct from ethology, or biology, or the same computer science. I'm not saying''take its foundations "in them - a euphemism that many intend to resolve the issue - it is constituted as a science in order to lay strong sense real chair. (At this point, the reading of Georges Canguilhem, to set a critical example among many, is most instructive.) From there, the mistakes will happen. For example: how to distinguish a "response" - which nevertheless represents a significant intention - from mere "reaction" from a biological system? I'm considering things in the basic principles, but things can get worse problems as the current building chimera - that itself is a chimera, estimated Galileo - of wanting to catch the meaning of the thoughts, desires and emotions, colored images with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of brain. From this epistemological perspective, calls CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), which deal in very different and sometimes contradictory to the neurosciences, must demonstrate that they are still more than a mixed bag of techniques and auto-induced autocoerción statistical dressing to be identifiable science.
remains to be addressed here the other major problem of measurement in this field. Hence, estimated Galileo, your illustrious predecessor Galielo Galieli raised its "measure everything that is measurable and what is not measurable make measurable" a big problem not solved so far. You know me better than the limit set by Planck's constant.
So when you say to Regarding the arguments of those therapies, "What I heard was a language comparable terminology and procedures, in many respects with the so-called scientific method, should I rather think that you let yourself be seduced by the beautiful sirens of language, by powerful formal aspect, but empty of content that have borrowed from other beings much less mythical? Dear Galileo, at this point, prefer to stick tied to the mast and sail between the Scylla and Charybdis of science and the subject that makes it possible.
From there, I will gladly debate.
remains to be addressed here the other major problem of measurement in this field. Hence, estimated Galileo, your illustrious predecessor Galielo Galieli raised its "measure everything that is measurable and what is not measurable make measurable" a big problem not solved so far. You know me better than the limit set by Planck's constant.
So when you say to Regarding the arguments of those therapies, "What I heard was a language comparable terminology and procedures, in many respects with the so-called scientific method, should I rather think that you let yourself be seduced by the beautiful sirens of language, by powerful formal aspect, but empty of content that have borrowed from other beings much less mythical? Dear Galileo, at this point, prefer to stick tied to the mast and sail between the Scylla and Charybdis of science and the subject that makes it possible.
From there, I will gladly debate.
* This brief text is part of a debate recently passed a science forum of the newspaper "Public."
0 comments:
Post a Comment