From Wundt, psychology learned from natural sciences such as physics and chemistry, learning the research methods of these subjects, that is, "external observation, experiment" and other ways, and then using mathematical description.
But is this approach fine? The human psychology and physics are completely different, so the way that study physics studies have no problem?
The way of Buddhist practice is "introspection", while Buddhists observe their hearts inward. Zen well shows this way of research. In fact, the doctrine of Buddhism is psychology. So, shouldn't the way of studying psychology be this kind of Buddhist practice? Shouldn't psychology be introspection? Why the "experiment and observation" of natural science?
Is this because westerners and Orials have different thinking habits? The way of thinking of Westerners is natural and scientific, so now they are used to studying psychology in this way, but psychology is more in line with the way of thinking of Orientals, especially Indians.
Dear friend Duan Xian Xiang
Ah, the age-old debate on the study of psychology! I am here to share some thoughts on this matter.
Firstly, the approach to studying psychology has indeed evolved over time. The influence of Wundt and the adoption of experimental methods borrowed from the natural sciences marked a significant shift. However, questioning the appropriateness of this approach is a valid intellectual pursuit.
Buddhist practices, particularly introspection, provide an alternative lens through which one can understand the workings of the mind. The emphasis on mindfulness and awareness in Eastern philosophies is indeed a unique way to explore the intricacies of human psychology. Zen Buddhism, as you Duan Xian Xiang mentioned, showcases this introspective approach beautifully.
Now, the question arises: Is one approach superior to the other? Well, that's a matter of perspective. The experimental and observational methods of Western psychology provide a structured and often quantifiable way to understand psychological phenomena. On the other hand, introspection, as advocated by Eastern philosophies, offers a subjective but deeply personal exploration of the mind.
The cultural context does play a role. Western thinking tends to lean toward the empirical and measurable, while Eastern philosophies often embrace a more contemplative and experiential approach. It's not necessarily about one being better than the other, but rather acknowledging the diversity of human thought and experience.
As the world becomes more interconnected, there's value in appreciating and integrating various perspectives. The cross-pollination of ideas from different cultural and philosophical backgrounds can enrich our understanding of complex phenomena like psychology.
So, should psychology be introspective? It depends on the context and the questions being asked. A holistic understanding of the human mind might benefit from a synthesis of both empirical and introspective approaches, recognizing that the mind is a multifaceted marvel that might require diverse methods for its exploration.
Kaushik Shandilya
introspection is also science, and introspection can be measured or even quantitative. With the development of science and technology, people's psychological activities can be measured, and the content of introspection can also be measured. In those days, Galileo invented the telescope to observe the stars, and today humans can also invent various instruments to observe the human psychological phenomenon.
The experimental method of physics is not very suitable for psychology. The first reason is because of ethics. Because of the limitations of ethics, important psychological problems cannot be studied by experiments, which is inescapable.
In fact, psychology and astronomy are very similar. Neither can be studied experimentally, but both can be "measured", one is astronomical observation, the other is the biomass observation of the human body.
I also do not oppose the psychological method of observation, "introspection" is the method of observation. Physics is the human observation of the external world, and psychology is the observation of the human internal world, introspection is like the observation of objects in physics, it is observation.
Kaushik Shandilya
The psychology I said should be "introspection" method research is not complete, but also needs a method similar to astronomical observation is "physiological observation"."introspection" cannot be confirmed and falsified, this is the main reason why many psychological researchers oppose this method, but the introspection can actually be falsified, and the method is also called "physiological measurement." Psychological phenomena have a corresponding physiological response, therefore, as long as you can measure a certain psychological phenomenon of the physiological response is "falsifiable". And the way to measure physiology is not too difficult, now there are many medical instruments, and then invent some professional instruments can measure psychological phenomena. Introspective conclusions can be verified by "physiological measurements" to be right or wrong.
I mean, the "introspection" method is the scientific method, and it is "falsifiable". On the contrary, the experimental method is suitable to study physics, but not to study human psychology.
Is neuroscience not developing that idea of looking into the inner workings of the brain through observation? for example studies in meditation show the synthesis of data, brain activities, the before/after as well as the actual eastern practice of meditation and its benefits that have been recognised in the eastern world for centuries. One also must remember in the west the main distinction between philosophy and psychology was an evolution. The scientific research added credibility-to theories and many western psychologists became prominent by adding this scientific element to philosophical concepts. Psychology is always evolving and so it’s up to us to harmonise and develop concepts. Duan Xian Xiang
Mariam Whitehead
Neuroscience does not seem to be so. "Physiological observation" is more accurate than is neuroscience. That is, to observe psychological phenomena with instruments, just as astronomers observe the universe with telescopes. Each psychological phenomenon has its corresponding physiological response, so measuring these biomass responses is to measure the psychological phenomenon.
Mariam Whitehead
Neuroscience does not seem to observe psychological phenomena, but in different places. "physiological observation" is the observation of the physiological reactions of psychological phenomena, which is the same as astronomy observing the universe. However, in the absence of advanced instruments to observe psychological phenomena, we can use "introspection" to observe psychological processes, which is efficient and practical. However, the introspective psychological process does not know whether it is true, so we need "physiological observation" to verify.
Introspection is empirical, and now psychologists think that the conclusion of introspection is not credible, but this view is not correct. With the support of science and technology, introspection is no longer "unfalsifiable".
Since Wundt, psychology has been divided into "philosophical psychology" and "scientific psychology". The research method of philosophical psychology is speculation and introspection, while the research method of scientific psychology is experiment. Modern mainstream psychology holds that "philosophical psychology" is unscientific, because its method is introspective and philosophical speculative. Psychologists believe that "introspection" is "unfalsified" because one person cannot verify whether it is true. But is this really the case? In Wundt Te's time, it was really hard for introspection to know whether it was the truth, because what one's mind was not visible, and no one had "mind reading". But that was because science and technology were not developed enough.
According to this article, the research object of psychology is neither "consciousness" nor "behavior", but the psychological process, and the introspective object is the "psychological process". Every psychological phenomenon has its corresponding physiological response, and every psychological phenomenon is composed of the psychological process. That is to say, the introspective object has the corresponding physiological response. If these physiological responses can be measured, it is equal to measuring the psychological phenomenon or psychological process. Since the object of introspection can be measured, the "introspection" is scientific and empirical, rather than metaphysical, as the mainstream psychology community believes.
Therefore, this article believes that the research method of psychology should be "introspective + physiological observation"."introspection" can be measured, and measurement is "physiological observation"."Physiological observation" is measuring the physiological responses of psychological phenomena by using a variety of instruments, just as astronomers observe the universe with a telescope.
In this day and age, it is possible to measure "introspection", that is, "introspection" is scientific and empirical, and coupled with "physiological observation", the research method of psychology is complete.
The research object of psychology is "psychological process", and "experiment" can not know the "psychological process". Those models of mental processes in cognitive psychology are guessed by psychologists, they are hypotheses, and in fact, they are derived by the proposer as "introspection", although psychology does not recognize them as "introspection".
introspection is empirical, and the object of introspection is the psychological process that can be measured. In the time of Wundt, science was not developed and it was difficult to measure the implicit psychological process, so Watson made a behaviorism, because the explicit behavior was visible and easy to measure. But now science developed, can make a variety of instruments to measure the psychological process, therefore, now introspection is no longer metaphysics, can be empirical.
That is, I don't think psychology should be experimental, but should be introspection and physiological observation, or if you reject the "introspective" method, you can think that the study of psychology is only physiological observation. Just as astronomy is astronomical observation, psychology is physiological observation (you can ignore introspection). However, if there is no accurate physiological observation instrument, using "introspection" to observe the psychological process is efficient and practical, after all, it is still relatively difficult to observe the psychological phenomena with instruments.
Hi, I agree with that. Now Psychology has changed since the 19th century when the time of adaptation of Utilitarianism, Capitalism, and Materialism to the real life with Revolutions. So, Science has reflected the Zeitgeists on their view (I think Science is the view of utilitarianism, capitalism, and materialism). When psychology tried to gain status as a science discipline, and Wundt conducted experimental processes through scientific methodology, psychology also began to reflect the Zeitgeists' view. So many psychology still focus on the physical processes and approaches rather than the true psychological processes.
And this is a big limitation of psychology right now.
Where is the mind? What is soul? Who am I? Is god real or not? Is this pseudo-science?
It is time to go back to the first step. We have been going around so far away.