With so many permutations of so many diverse "things": the only way to provide a general alternative better view AND APPROACH will be WITH a full-fledged paradigm shift:
What is offered must have a host of better characteristics and better ways, all related clearly to a better empiricism. [ SPECIFICALLY: I am speaking of/for PSYCHOLOGY -- the number of characters allowed in a title didn't allow for the inclusion of that full phrase (though the same type of thing may at times be required by other sciences) .]
A full-fledged PARADIGM CHANGE: Better assumptions; stricter & very established/agreeable and actual empiricism, well-defined, with a definition true for ALL sciences; better KEY BEHAVIORAL foundations/clear grounding (in terms of: behavior patterns) for all cognitive processes; clear NEW observations sought (i.e. major discoveries sought) VIA NEW observation methods; & with clear better-empirical verifiable/falsifiable HYPOTHESES . This is what I seek to offer with :
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY (see its major References and the Project Log (Updates) for this Project; the major References, hundreds of pages long, will provide you with a perspective and approach -- a "how-to" FOR all of that. Given its better empiricism, a concrete basis is also provided for General Artificial Intelligence -- all that is found and seen can be "mechanized", is programmable.)
[ This all is VERY serious "business"; it really is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you see major problems with large portions of Psychology throughout its history, you better "go with" what I present; otherwise the long-standing situation WILL remain the same; I think you may well be able to imagine how and why that could be true (all the various myths of how things [otherwise] could/will come together NOT WITHSTANDING -- these are true myths, not based on any empiricism). ]
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory-A-Full-Fledged-Paradigm-Shift-for-PSYCHOLOGY
Interesting ideas. Is psychology even a 'mature science' in Kuhn's sense (i.e., a field that is characterized by the dominance of a single paradigm)? Arguably, it's an 'immature science' characterized by the proliferation of multiple research fields, none which has gained dominance (behaviorism may have been an accepted paradigm in the 1940s and cognitive psychology may currently have a status as a 'paradigm' or 'disciplinary matrix'). Answers here may depend on what kind of historical scale we're looking at scientific change from.
I tend to think (and have argued in print) that Kuhn's all-or-nothing picture of scientific change (where paradigms are continually *replaced* by mutually exclusive or 'incommensurable' paradigms) doesn't hold true for many instances of scientific change (e.g., much of contemporary cognitive psychology/ neuroscience assimilates research methods from behaviorism; much of classical mechanics is retained in special relativity).
Dear Jonathan Y. Tsou
I agree with you (and as I have previously with Orlando M Lourenço) , where you now both have indicated Psychology is in a pre-paradignamic state (is an "immature science"). I can likely also see your point about Kuhn's position on "rapid shifts" of paradigms; THAT may well be too stark: I would imagine that some good actual full-fledged paradigm might well not be seen as totally "mutually exclusive" of other views -- rather, just putting at least many aspects of earlier findings in a better (and progressive) fuller, larger context; and such being the case at least (or especially) if we ARE going from a pre-paradignamic state to a paradignamic state.
I do think, though, that A major paradigm is needed -- as you may also be implying (hopefully). I believe a start is a full and constant appreciation for, and commitment to, true minimal empirical groundings and foundations for EVERYTHING: all concepts, constructs, processes, and models: THAT founding/grounding being (minimally) ON: KEY direct observable overt phenomena (in the case of humans (and other animals) these phenomena would be in terms of clearly seen, and thus rightfully definable, behavior PATTERNS). This would yield seeing behavioral phenomenon clearly of the nature of biological patternings, and then it is more than conceivable that behavior patterns PER SE -- "just 'behavior' " alone -- could be seen as providing all of its own best "contexts", for defining and understanding other related behavioral phenomenon (other PATTERNS) **; this would constitute the fields of Psychology (or, basic Psychology). And, recall: ALL is as directly seen or as well-founded (as indicated), and thus rightfully implied. Behavior PATTERNS are themselves a full-fledged aspect (or rather, subarea) of BIOLOGY ITSELF and, as such, explanations will for the most part be found within that sub-area itself (making much neuroscience "support" and inter-discipline "amalgamated" views for the most part "off track" (since that is almost always basically speculative, and not well integrable into a good, tight science)).
** FOOTNOTE: This is the nature of classical ethology, of great animal studies.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology