I believe we need standards to look at psychology and "psychology" to not get confused or mislead or falsely enamored, and to have standards to see what Psychology views and approaches have good standards themselves -- when and as properly evaluated. Thus, we may see some of the better perspectives and approaches (so evaluated) and "pick up" from there.
Otherwise the amount of confusion and imaginative misleading (or self-misleading) that can go on may very well be great -- and the morass and confusion will only remain and likely get even worse.
I would be happy to see some presentation of such standards for evaluation/empiricism. I know I provide some empirical standards expressly, explicitly, and clearly. Do others value such systems-of-evaluation?: do you find some, or know of some and use them, and/or perhaps possibly present some? (Clue: a very strong commitment to the very best possible empiricism should be involved -- including always, for all phenomenon addressed, some clear connection to some key directly observable overt behavior patterns AT SOME POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THEIR MAJOR BEHAVIOR PATTERNS (THAT cited) and (likely) other lesser processes in behavior change (as hypothesized) made explicit -- that aiding in maintaining all behavior pattern change 'seen' (and connections) explicit and as at least close to being "all clear"; WITH ALL, noted above, making it possible to understand all that is noteworthy the same way and with great consensus: seeing the basic major species-typical results, in the same way -- this is known as inter-rater or inter-observer reliability -- really MUCH more important than statistics. ( I think it is fair to say: THIS, much more than the one mere technique of experimentation, _IS_ SCIENCE; this will at least soon, or eventually, involve validly DISCOVERING and thereby finding true assumptions and principles, which is central to all good thinking , and certainly to all good science.) This would be good, wouldn't it? Is it too much to ask, especially in Psychology's problem situation?; I do know most thoughtful psychologists do see a problem situation in research and/or theory (and do not see "things" getting better).
If only I do much of this or am one of the few that do it well, you really should read me (I provide some major papers and a large Collection of Essays and more, totally over 600 all-related pages, all available through RG).
It is getting so bad, that some good justification of a view/approach should ITSELF, in its own presentation, take the time (with each presentation), showing that it is amenable to such evaluation (as described above) -- given the situation, this is not asking too much, but likely just asking for what is required.
Help yourselves (and maybe let me help you., too) AS INDICATED -- it is really an existential responsibility (maybe an existential method), and should be done.
Dear Ivo Carneiro de Sousa
I see the peer-reviewed stuff as limited and skewed (and enforcing some authoritarian positions). Correspondingly, much GOOD (that exists) CANNOT BE FOUND IN THOSE JOURNALS; and, it seems more-and-more of what is there IN THOSE JOURNALS IS not only select and limited, but also terrible "crap" , ACTUALLY DEFICIENT ITSELF -- especially perspective/theory development, foundation, justification, the "principles", grounding and explication, of "things" -- ALL OFTEN (if not typically) never well done. ( I do understand that the journals are major sources of pride for researchers and some theorists, and you have few others; but you could be much better existentialists, and take more responsibility to do better, yourselves: See my "Question" post, beginning this thread. AND: Certainly, you realize that one cannot count on what that exists to make things right -- and, for many reasons, THAT is extremely true in Psychology. All my related writings (i.e. all my writings, available through RG will , if you read them, MAKE THIS CLEAR.)
Another major problem with what you say is in your statement, " There is no a prior validation or exclusive experimental evaluation ". I only wish there were no a priori "validation" but I see the entire field of psychology 'automatically' and thoughtlessly, and in a way unknowingly: using presumptions as pseudo-'assumptions' from the "culture" (esp. old-time philosophers) AND requiring all working in the field with them (BIG e.g. students) to NOT evaluate, but use these
these poorly founded, very poorly grounded, AND UNPROVEN pseudo-assumptions. I write about this at GREAT LENGTH explicitly and present (also explicitly) alternatives, which are more-likely-true principles assumptions (totally consistent with Biology).
I also must say that experimentation in reality is greatly too much favored (with what to have to experiment on not at all reasonably set up -- i.e. understood in other, more-important AND NECESSARY ways first).
I am mystified at this (yet another attempt) to indicate "all is okay", when it seems (to me) the VAST MAJORITY of good Psychology theorists and researchers seem to THINK HAT ALL IS NOT OK. Thank goodness, that in responding to you, I again can note huge problems with the status quo.
Basically the same things I said about "peer-reviewed" journals (the "peer-reviewing, being NO type of real safeguard) can be said about conferences, ETC. (which you also noted).
I do see you (as you present yourself here) as an illustration of "part of the problem."
P.S. Is your " an inter-subjective process " something special and other than "cooperation"/communication; it seems you see it as some magic "process" that confers something more, and better, on the "process". [(The "process" is more like authoritarian autocracy than any as you present it.)]
P.P.S. Next time I want to hear "the party line", I will consult an encyclopedia -- with very little concern about how old it is. (The way professors and students are operating, this will be true maybe for another 100 years.)
[ I am now away for a few days, so if any responses from me are needed, it will have to wait a few days.]
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education