Indeed: They use a bad set of unproven baseless assumptions (both the REALLY-bad guys and the relatively more acceptable -- but still unacceptable).
They conjure up (in their "minds" with unjustified deductive systems) their OWN models -- not all clearly based or based-well in the Subject matter.
They use, rather the eschew, reasoning by analogy. All the by-analogy stuff is "off" and never seems temporary (and in any way excusable).
Ethogram Theory is better than them all (though it, in a way, comes from "outside" the field). It is better in the three ways indicated and in its empiricism (the strictest), the use of the strongest results in psychology, and actually having behavior patterns as a BIOLOGY of behavior -- no mere supposed "linkages".
If you can't "beat that", then you can't [ ... ] .
SEE:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ
and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322818578_NOW_the_nearly_complete_collection_of_essays_RIGHT_HERE_BUT_STILL_ALSO_SEE_THE_Comments_1_for_a_copy_of_some_important_more_recent_posts_not_in_the_Collection_include_reading_the_2_Replies_to_the_Comm
P.S. AND, there are DISCOVERIES we (ethogram theorists) need; we don't already know it all and just need to do peculiar experiments !!!
Returning to the philosophical, there are alwys rreasons not to be content with any theory. Contentment is for religious belief, science is a search for the truth and as it is a never ending search for the truth it is many ways the antithesis of contentment.
The ethics of science are epistemology, empiricism and doxasticism. Contentment does not get a look in.
Dear Barry Turner
I guess I meant "content" in the common usage in this context, meaning: finding a theory useful and meaningful and valuable (and allowing for continuous progress; and it being empirical, respectable, agreed-upon (having inter-observer reliability), generating testable hypotheses and showing some sort of validity is also good).
By golly, that would make one who wants to learn about the real world, "content" in about any sense.
Brad
Many of the theories in psychology are very useful, meaningful and valuable. It is not necessary for an idea to be strictly proven for those qualities to exist in it.
The only time that ideas are dangerous is when they are crystalised into dogma and imposed upon those who do not want them. We can chose to disregard all other we do not agree with.
Humanity has greatly benefitted from many belief systems, even those we hold to be nonsense or even evil. What is almost certainly the case is that humanity would not have survived for long in any fully contented state, so we should perhaps be wary when it is suggested we adopt one.
Dear Barry Turner
I very much disagree with you about "theories in psychology".
In effect, modern psychology theories HAVE "crystallized into dogma" and they have NEVER EVER been good (not even reasonably good for a time, historically, in any noteworthy sense). I see this: "Big time, big time" (as they say). ) [ It does not typically -- in important contexts -- matter to me what anyone just thinks EVER (so, if this is philosophy, I "don't care"), unless we can all really know what that thinking is -- and actual good science is the way. ]
To speak more broadly (and give fuller context):
I personally do not think an Age of Reason has yet occurred (I never have; it is all pretense and bluster): too much bad social science/societal thinking (and NO evidence of the type of good theory with all the good qualities I described, and more could be said).
I believe humans have yet to do any social science correctly. It has all been that bad
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education