Perhaps many would say: No, or not likely (since nothing much has changed in about 100 years). (Of course, you could "check me out"; my attempts at contributing may help; maybe others could and would say similarly, and say so here, in this RG "gathering place". No one would really much argue the assertion of the Question, though, would 'they'? And, that admission may be some impetus to think/do differently OR NOT.)
How well do we solve similar large problems (due to several of the same sorts of causes)?; for a bit of insight, perhaps you can answer this question: when we talk about keeping our Earth habitable, how often does the topic of population get discussed?
We are just arrogant irrational inconsistent babies, perhaps a poorly adapted species that will not survive. And, our institutions perpetuate denial and ignorance. But for most: for their "own good", they must "forget" and just move on (what could be much more ignoble and support, perpetuate and grow our problems, AND cause -- or "allow" - us to "lose track"?.) I believe one must work hard to be an existentialist and take appropriate responsibility; anyone in power who is not open to such new individual initiatives is a corrupt (perhaps evil) "force".
Do you appreciate where you are in all this?
My answer is yes, behavioral science can progress, because there are people such as yourself who see the flawed presuppositions and biases in the system and work to improve it. Researchers who do this will be the innovators, and those who fail to keep up will be left in the dust.
It is so bad that what has NO direct empirical foundation AND no reasonable empirical foundation (connection), but simply is usual in 'theory' and research: that is considered fine and good.
BUT NEW hypotheses, 100% founded on the key direct observations of ALL that is hypothesized as central, and clearly "behind" other related phenomenon (and those key observations being proximate causes of the inception of all major behavior pattern changes hypothesized) , when THAT is addressed and spoken of: you can find THAT being called "speculation". This is literally hostility to science.
FOR EXAMPLE:
This is exactly the way the people in the International Society for Human Ethology have become (over the last few decades). They have completely forgotten the approach and great true inductive empiricism of classical ethology and just talk about absolutely indirect and completely unclearly related things like evolutionary "psychology", comparative psychology, and neurobiology (and this is about all). To any empiricist, with his head on properly, these topics are _INHERENTLY_ SPECULATIVE. But, this, trumps empiricism today. People, we are just "going through the motions".
I know that "developments" in much of psychology have paralleled these declines.
In short, things are NOT GETTING BETTER, in behavioral science, anyway, but worse.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology