Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When psychology tries to be a science instead of a mythology…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

After a hundred and fifty years, this is what they got:

But isn’t psychology different from mythology in that it can be falsified? No doubt, since 1879, psychologists have devised methods to empirically investigate the mind, ranging from introspectionism to behaviourism, cognitive modelling, connectionism, and more. For example, as a cognitive psychologist, I am trained in the theory of how the mind works and the use of statistical instruments to pursue investigations of behaviour. Yet, our field is currently in a crisis due to issues with replication, ecological validity, the cultural limits of experimental subject populations, and some ethical peccadilloes. Frankly, for more than 100 years of research, we don’t have as much to show as the physical sciences do; so far, psychology is not very effective at tracing general laws. Sigmund Freud’s theories were largely unfalsifiable, and the promissory note that the mind is the brain has yet to be cashed in. It might be best to conceive of empirical psychology as a set of pragmatic methods to develop discursively helpful metaphors of the mind and hold out in hope that we slowly secure a set of reliable correlations between neuroanatomy and function.

Conceiving of psychology as a mythology enables us to perceive that psychology is an explicit portrayal of what we want to understand about reality and the ultimately pragmatic forms that such knowledge has taken. The emotional need to possess explanations worthy of the commitment of belief is greater than what we can ever know.

Rami Gabriel, “Myth and the mind” at Aeon

Gabriel encourages us to see psychology as a mythology and, of course, he is right: “Sigmund Freud’s theories were largely unfalsifiable, and the promissory note that the mind is the brain has yet to be cashed in.” The idea that the mind is just the brain is unfalsifiable too. Beliefs that do not originate in fact are impervious to evidence.

See also: Back to school briefing: Seven myths of social psychology: Many lecture room icons from decades past are looking tarnished now. (That was 2014 and it has gotten worse since.)

Comments
In some ways the academic field of psychology was accidental and unnecessary. There have always been academics who study how to persuade people. Formerly called rhetoricians. Psychology branched off from neurology, in an attempt to use the electrical findings of neurology for persuasion. The electrical side has grown vastly more sophisticated, from Galvani to MRI, but it still doesn't correlate well with the real techniques of persuasion. Marketers and advertisers and political operatives are the practical rhetoricians of the modern world, and they don't use Galvani or MRI. They still use the same basic methods that worked 2000 years ago because humans haven't changed.polistra
March 29, 2021
March
03
Mar
29
29
2021
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Psychology-science reminds me of Darwinian-science... mythology and just-so stories ... i like this one: "Frankly, for more than 100(150) years of research, we don’t have as much to show as the physical sciences do"martin_r
March 28, 2021
March
03
Mar
28
28
2021
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply