NO, of course not, not even if it seems consistent with all we know. Relatedly: QUIT THINKING UP HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE SYSTEMS, to use. If this is what you do, and if such a way of thinking is not basically FORCED on you, then it has NO PLACE in basic research.
But this would eliminate what portion of modern psychologists?: perhaps all of them?
Examples of unjustified entities or analogies:
* embodied cognition
(by irrational analogy with behavioral changes that DO HAPPEN in Piaget's Sensorimotor Period)
-------
* executive functions
----------
*meta-memory
--------------------
* meta-cognition
[ and ALL other "meta"s ]
(all of the above are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO PROVEN-NEEDED)
--------------------
* systems theories, where the system was formulated with a
hypothetico-deductive approach, not clearly or necessarily
needed ...
--------------
* "Ditto" for dynamic systems theories ...
------------------
* And, for hodgepodge Relational Developmental Systems Theories
(including the 'Bioecological Approach'
and sociocultural theory) -- which have no clear system and
represent subjective researcher intuition (the 'researchers' are
the "relaters")
---------------
* information-processing theory (by-analogy)
-----------------
* Perceptual Control Theory (which is inconsistent with itself, at least
unless some key changes I have proposed are accepted)
(see their Project and my inputs there).
----------------------
* explaining all behavior change in terms of a small number of
supposedly basic types of learning (considered to be
homogeneous, all the "same process", explicitly or implicitly). Any
thought enables one to see this as
terribly presumptuous and likely wrong. AND, the same wrong is
occurring when explanations are just in terms such TYPES OF
learning -- that is still, not ok, unless it is indicated how to
discriminate learnings within TYPE.
-----------
* the "spawn" of attachment theory and the neo-Freudian ilk
(close to mythological in nature)
-------------
* Piagetian or neo-Piagetian theories, which can only be seen to have important process going on, "all in the Subject's head" -- this is big-time hypothetico-deductive (and, of course, NOT JUSTIFIED)
--------------------------
[ While rightful and true thinking may self-correct (if one keeps related to all key relevant observations which can be made), wrongful thinking does not, but quite the opposite: unfounded BELIEFS strengthen with commitment -- and especially if one can think only of things related to unproven, unjustified, baseless 'assumptions'* -- as IS commonly the case. "'Houston', we have a problem." ]
* FOOTNOTE: Re: Very common baseless (unproven) "assumptions": I have made a major case here, good in-itself: see my longest paper and my Collected Essays -- all here, on RG. http://tiny.cc/ethogram and http://tiny.cc/collectedEssays, respectively.
--------------------------
-------------
Did I miss anything? I do not want to "miss" any such thing. This is just all that readily came to mind; but, I would like a complete list.
Also, in contrast, I would love to hear about good theories (other than one I have presented).
Rene Descartes answered your interesting arguments. "I think, therefore, I exist." Genius Hawking perfectly confirmed this thesis of Descartes. You have also raised the question of "Primary." There is an answer to this question in the Bible.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning