I am thinking of Psychology researchers and theorists. Is it their duty to science to investigate the possibilities of important new tools and possible discoveries that involve empiricism at its best: attempting direct observation of possible/likely important overt behaviors, heretofore not seen?
For example, IN PARTICULAR:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_psychologists_have_not_yet_realized_eye-tracking_technology_etc_ALLOWS_FOR_AN_OVERALL_MORE_EMPIRICAL_APPROACH2
We should constantly be updating our understanding of the field and the tools available to us. It's perhaps less of a duty and more simply a matter of not being able to properly do our jobs as researchers, if we do not keep ourselves apprised of emerging tools. That's one reason why communication through channels like ResearchGate and OSF are so very important.
Duty, obligation or responsibility lies on the shoulders of intellectuals in all fields including psychology to promote, improve and update knowledge base to their particular disciplines.
The duties of researchers and theorists do not stop at a certain limit, it must remain constant. Because the circumstances of discoveries and studies are constantly changing, and the cognitive construction of any researcher must be continually updated.
My answer to this question's focus on scientists' duty to science is a most definite "No", except in the narrow context that I'll begin with.
To my understanding, the concept of "duty" pertains strictly and exclusively to socially defined contexts, in which one party is under an obligation, and has duly committed itself, to satisfy the (normally explicitly stated) expectations of another party. Accordingly, psychology researchers and theoreticians contracted to an employer have a duty to try to satisfy their employer's stated needs to improve the effectiveness of his or her organization's undertakings - and hence, by implication, to investigate relevant-seeming possibilities offered by new tools, methods, discoveries, theories and so forth.
Unconstrained by social commitments of this sort, scientists have no duty to science per se, which is a domain of humanly produced, documented knowledge that exists entirely independently of the innumerable socially pursued scientific enterprises, past and present, that have contributed to it. Its existence and availability to all scientists in and of itself imposes no a priori social obligations upon individual scientists to commit themselves to investigating its recently documented discoveries and other developments that might enable further gains in understanding. Scientists' personal relationship and sense of kinship with science is not fundamentally grounded in awareness or feelings of duty to repay others who have somehow enabled the historical growth of scientific understanding that underpins their own, but rather in their personal disposition to be intellectually stimulated, challenged, and compelled by the scientific knowledge they currently possess to pursue further its possibilities for increasing their own understanding. In metaphoric terms, scientists may feel their pursuit to be driven by a personal sense of duty to themselves, but without ever entertaining conceits as to the possible implications for science that their investigations might lead to.
From a students perspective... Science is all around us-- as is art, history, etc. What sets science, especially psychology, apart from other disciplines is how it interacts with humanity. I am not sure if duty is the term I would prescribe for scientists, researchers, and thinkers alike, but it certainly would be close to it. For myself, I feel compelled through a strong sense of responsibility to pursue the unknown while refining what is known. As Thomas Kuhn would say, psychology is a field filled with failed paradigms. Yes, paradigms lead us towards phenomena and theories, but they also lead us to questions that desire answers (facts). I would like to think that scientists feel called to pursue the noble art of answering their own questions. We live in a world of our own theories and I am not sure I would be able to contribute to the creation of theories without feeling some sense of deep responsibility. I am not sure if I answered your question the way you would like but I do hope I provided some "food for thought".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology