In this part of the course As we enter more deeply into the conception of psychology as a science. Well, in my view, is a good example of scientific understanding of human nature, but yet I do not think I have a similar status to science natural, such as biology or physics.
Why say this? Because, for starters, there is a psychology, but many psychologies, each with a different conception of what is the object of psychological study. Furthermore, in the seeds of psychology (or psychology) located the idea of \u200b\u200bScience, a strong and valid knowledge about the world, in this case the psycho-social world. But let me say that there is no single standard conception of what is science. We're not even sure there may be an absolute objectivity, which is the cornerstone of most definitions of science.
But for purposes of advancing exploration Psychology (from now on I will speak in the singular about this broad field of knowledge), have sought to try to point out the highlights of the traditional definition of science.
What is Science?
According to Madsen (1985), the author described in the textbook, describes science as a sociocultural system of individuals dedicated to research and theoretical and philosophical thought.
Another interesting point of science is to produce scientific texts at three levels:
- A philosophical meta
- A theoretical and hypothetical level
- A empirical level
From Auguste Comte and Stuart Mill, the parents of the movement called positivism, until the end of the First World War, science was based primarily on a series of observations and descriptions, ie empirical research.
is in this period arose the theory of evolution
pasteurization processes and rabies vaccine developed by Pasteur, economic observations of Marx and job descriptions provided by Freud subconscious mind.
The Circle neopositivists Vienna proposed adding the theoretical principles to empirical research, in order "to produce theories conceived as groups of testable hypotheses and explanatory models" (from page 37 of textbook).
When the Americans had shown the lethality of its atomic bomb, that is, when World War II ended, a philosopher named Karl Popper said the philosophical thinking coupled with theoretical and empirical research. The role of philosophy in science is to establish what another philosopher, Kuhn called paradigms . According
Kuhn there are two ways to understand the progress of knowledge:
1. The cumulative growth within a given paradigm.
2. Progress due to a complete reorganization of existing knowledge, which is known as the revolutions of the paradigms.
An example of paradigm revolution Freud's approach to mental disorders are caused by unresolved sexual problems in imfancia.
Science and Technology
However, it would mean that there is a fundamental difference between science and technology. Science is one way to gain knowledge through the study of the environment without serves other interests, economic or ideological, meaning it is ethically neutral and designed for better understanding of humanity and its environment. The science is humanistic, not technology, since it has the purpose of making life easier for the advancement of humanity.
In theory you could do science just for the pleasure of knowing, while creating technology due to principles, interests and ideologies. However, things are not so clear: Scientists are human, belong to groups with philosophies of life, political, religious and economic very different. It is therefore important to keep in mind that we are seeing Psychology only from a very specific corner of the world.
To delve deeper into this very human aspect of science, I present to Bruno Latour
Scientific Principles of Psychology
I.
stepsThere are some fundamental principles from a Western scientific perspective to make psychology become a science. These principles are not fully accepted by all psychologists, but are part of the primary requirements of those who think that psychology can be objective and measurable:
Create and use a hypothesis
"This is a statement clear how we that can address a given problem.
-A hypothesis is a prior belief, so may be biased in some way the discovery and analysis of data.
There are other ways of understanding the environment and generate knowledge, without using hypotheses. For example, experiment without using previous notions of what we believe will happen, ie to "see what happens," as do anthropologists, or state the problem of interest as clearly as possible without taking sides on the possible outcomes, as do sociologists.
design experiments
If we want is to check something and refute alternative explanations, which we use is an experiment. To do this we must carry out several steps:
a) Establish independent variables, ie to clearly define what we want to study the effects.
b) Clearly describe the object or subject on which the variable will act independently.
c) Control: Define with precision the circumstances performance of the independent variables.
d) Control: Describe clearly characteristics of objects or subjects.
e) describe and define clearly the aspect that we wish to study all possible independent variable may have on the subject or object. To this end we call dependent variable because it depends on the effects of independent variables.
Carry out the experiment
a) By persons trained for it, that is, scientists
b) Write down any deviation
Analysis of results
a) Verify or disprove hypotheses in a statistical way
and / or
b) Establish categories for qualitative analysis
II. Critically analyze
Well, now that we have analyzed the data, you must re-evaluate the design and establish critical that could have been improved, and if it is not obtained on the assumption sought to determine which failed and which of above steps.
III. systematically doubt
A sound research requires the search for cases or situations in which solutions or contradict findings from the experiment.
IV Using deduction or inference
depends ... whether the glass is half full or half empty ... everything is relative.
V.
generate theory is a general principle which helps us to understand most of the observations in the context of this principle.
VI. Verifiability
1. Consistency of use of the methods:
always equal 2. Explained step by step, reproducible (and recipes)
3. When it will be replicated the same results (although this does not happen often in the non-positivist qualitative research)
VII. The Predictability
a) To be a scientific fact, we must go beyond chance.
b) There is no scientific law can not predict whether an event 100%, given the presence of another.
c) This can be extrapolated to individuals in the social sciences, including psychology ... Really?
VII Diffusion
This principle is important, because if there is publication and dissemination of scientific findings then there is science itself. Americans (and Canadians) have a saying very true:
Publish or Perish ...
One of the major problems of science in Mexico is its limited distribution. There is almost no science journals, except in the social sciences, and científicias activities such as conventions, are few and rare.
I invite you not only with the information are I offer in the classroom or on the blog, and is catching the scientific search for knowledge in this exciting discipline.
Incidentally, an interesting blog on the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the era of new technologies is to Janneth Pinzon Avila, which I recommend to go:
0 comments:
Post a Comment