This theory holds that psychology is not suitable for statistical and experimental research, nor for mathematical models to describe laws, It believes that psychology is a complex science, so it proposes a new method to describe the laws of science: program. Do you think the psychological laws can be described by programs? Do you think this theory is valuable? By the way , What do you see that the second article is talking about, Is it a theory like me? Its "network model" is very similar to my "program model", and its "case conceptualization" is very similar to my "psychological analysis".
Preprint Psychological Program
Article A process-based approach to cognitive behavioral therapy: A ...
Article Embracing the Complexity of our Inner Worlds: Understanding ...
(Since Galileo and Newton, the tool for describing the laws of science is mathematics. The laws of physics are almost completely described in mathematics, with all kinds of equations. But is it possible that there are other tools for describing scientific laws? For example, I found that the laws of psychology can be described in a tool called "program". How about you? Have you found any other tools to describe the laws?
In the natural sciences, mathematical equations are used to describe laws, such as physics. But in the social sciences, such as economics, psychology, biology, etc., mathematics is not very appropriate, so what tools? The methodology of natural science is reductionism, while social science is a complex scientific method. The two are different. What tools are used to describe the law of social science?
Have you ever thought about this question? That is, what tools are used to describe the laws of science? Is there only math? Do you know that the tool for describing the laws of modern science is mathematics? Have you noticed what describes the laws of science?)
Physics has always used mathematics to describe laws, so psychologists and economists believe that psychology and economics should also use mathematics, but is it possible that this is wrong? Is there only "mathematics"? Let us open up our imagination, is it possible that there are other tools available? If mathematics really describes the laws of psychology and the laws of economics, then why is there no really useful theory found today?(I mean psychology) The answer may be that we have always thought that only mathematics can describe it, but there is actually another description tool: programs. There are scientists in complex science who have discovered this tool, themselves biologists and economists.
Preprint Analysis of Financial Crisis Causes and Complex Systems Scie...
Since they also believe that they have not found a tool for describing the laws of complex science, they are confused that there may be a "super calculus", and that this "mathematics" is describing complex science. I certainly believe that there is this "super calculus", but the difference is that I think this "calculus" is not math, it's something else. We've been trying to find a "mathematics" that is thought inertia, because in physics mathematics is so useful, However, scientists are wrong, and have never found this "super calculus" because it is not mathematics, we have been looking for tools in the garden of mathematics, did not think that it is not in the garden of mathematics.
I'm not saying that psychology and economics can't use mathematics, which needs quite a lot of mathematics in economics. I classified the disciplines by dimension, with a straight line as a dimension. At both ends of a straight line, one end is physics, psychology at one end. And economics, chemistry, biology, etc, are slightly close to the middle of the straight line. On the close side of physics, the law of science is mainly described by using mathematics, but it does not mean that it does not use the "program" at all. It means that in physics, mathematics and programs exist, but mathematics is the dominant. On the side near psychology, the law of science is mainly described by "program", but it does not mean that there is no mathematics, in this end, the program is the dominant position. In each science, both the mathematics and the program are needed, but the proportions of the two are different. In physics, mathematics is the dominant, and in psychology, the program is the dominant.
I mean, if we want to describe the laws of complex science (such as psychology, biology, economics, history, politics, etc.), mathematics is not appropriate and there a need a new tool: program. I am proposing a new tool to describe the laws of science. If we really want to make science like psychology a science, then we can't rely too much on mathematics, because these laws of science are more suitable to be described by "program". I know it's hard to accept, after all, the scientific community is taking mathematical descriptions for granted, it's the inertia of thought, and we need to change.
In Aristotle's time, people used "speculative philosophy" as a tool of scientific laws, and they rejected mathematical description. If today's scientists use mathematics as a tool and reject "programs", what is it different from that? Aren't they all used to old tools and reject new ones?
In the academic world today, some people find another person's theory valuable, and the first reaction is not to admit him, but to copy him.
The language that writes about the social and organic sciences (such as biology) is "programs," and the language of the universe is not only mathematics, but also programs.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning