2008 Woodie Awards
Can't psychologists agree?
Fred Bauer
Issue date: 3/1/05 Section: Viewpoint
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Here's a question about your psychology professors. Why do they disagree as vehemently as your 'philosophy' professors? Their disagreements are so sharp that in 1988 many dissenters broke away from the American Psychological Association to form their own American Psychological Society. In 1990 Jerome Bruner prefaced Acts of Meaning by observing that what William James called "the science of mind" had become "fragmented as never before in its history." Why?
One reason is that, like everyone else, they overlook their common-sense philosophy. Another reason is that they have 'philosophical' disagreements about 'science' and 'philosophy.'
Consider a bit of history. 1879 is popularly regarded as the birthdate of non-philosophical psychology. Nevertheless, less than twenty-five years after William James stated that psychology is "the description and explanation of states of consciousness as such," John Watson said that it was necessary to begin all over again. The reason, he argued, was that the introspectionist psychologists' talk about invisible minds and consciousness was a relic of pre-scientific religion. He announced therefore that he would study humans the same way astronomers, botanists, and biologists study stars, plants, and mice, namely, by observation. What should psychologists observe? "Behavior," Watson replied. Slowly, behaviorists gained control of countless departments of psychology.
Then in the 50's and 60's, Sigmund Koch gathered over 60 experts to assess the field. After studying their reports, he concluded in 1969 that much 'scientific' psychology is "pooled pseudo-knowledge." In 1982, for its fifteenth anniversary issue, Psychology Today asked eleven well-known psychologists to comment on the progress made in the previous fifteen years. Some of them singled out the recent 'cognitive revolution,' because it had liberated them from the "restrictive shackles" of behaviorism. Five years later, the embattled behaviorist, B. F. Skinner, told a New York Times interviewer, "I think cognitive psychology is a great hoax and a fraud, and that goes for brain science, too" (NYT, 9/25/87). Little wonder that Gordon Allport wrote that psychology "progresses in fits and starts, largely under the spur of fashion."
One reason is that, like everyone else, they overlook their common-sense philosophy. Another reason is that they have 'philosophical' disagreements about 'science' and 'philosophy.'
Consider a bit of history. 1879 is popularly regarded as the birthdate of non-philosophical psychology. Nevertheless, less than twenty-five years after William James stated that psychology is "the description and explanation of states of consciousness as such," John Watson said that it was necessary to begin all over again. The reason, he argued, was that the introspectionist psychologists' talk about invisible minds and consciousness was a relic of pre-scientific religion. He announced therefore that he would study humans the same way astronomers, botanists, and biologists study stars, plants, and mice, namely, by observation. What should psychologists observe? "Behavior," Watson replied. Slowly, behaviorists gained control of countless departments of psychology.
Then in the 50's and 60's, Sigmund Koch gathered over 60 experts to assess the field. After studying their reports, he concluded in 1969 that much 'scientific' psychology is "pooled pseudo-knowledge." In 1982, for its fifteenth anniversary issue, Psychology Today asked eleven well-known psychologists to comment on the progress made in the previous fifteen years. Some of them singled out the recent 'cognitive revolution,' because it had liberated them from the "restrictive shackles" of behaviorism. Five years later, the embattled behaviorist, B. F. Skinner, told a New York Times interviewer, "I think cognitive psychology is a great hoax and a fraud, and that goes for brain science, too" (NYT, 9/25/87). Little wonder that Gordon Allport wrote that psychology "progresses in fits and starts, largely under the spur of fashion."