Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science.

Abstract

This article provides psychologists with an overview of exciting developments in the philosophy of science that have occurred during the last two decades or so and briefly points up their implications for psychology as a science, a discipline, and a profession. These new philo, sophical developments provide a framework for psychology and the social sciences that will help to reconcile conflicting views and approaches within psychology and in its relation to the various biological and social science disciplines.In the monumental Psychology: A Study of a Science, edited by Sigmund Koch (Volumes [1][2][3][4][5][6][1959][1960][1961][1962][1963], one eminent psychologist after another, after many years-or even a lifetime of research-admitted to strong doubts about where they had been and what had been achieved, and some suggested that our most basic assumptions about the nature of psychology as a science and a method had to be questioned. They were right, although at that time new directions were not at all clear.Koch's diagnosis was incisive. He argued that psychology was unique insofar as its institutionalization preceded its content and its methods preceded its problems. . . .The "scientism" that many see and decry in recent psychology was thus with it from the start. . . . From the earliest days of the experimental pioneers, man's stipulation that psychology be adequate to science outweighed his commitment that it be adequate to man.

Empirical Values and the Culture of Family Therapy*

“…Topics such as the fragmentary nature of knowledge, the critical importance of context in research, contingent truths, the politics of research, problems of standard dichotomies, methodological multiplism (Cook & Campbell, 1979) and constructive realism13 (Howard & Maerlender, 1990) have a good deal of influence on the current research scene (Fiske & Shweder, 1986;Laudan, 1984;Manicas & Secord, 1983). Howard (1991) illustrates a reasonable middle ground for researchers on the matter of epistemology and provides one response to family therapy's new research epistemologists.…”

Explanation, Understanding and Typical Action

“…Although I do not pursue this here, I have argued that understanding (in the foregoing sense) is the proper goal of a theoretical psychology (Manicas and Secord, 1983;Margolis et al, 1986). Such theory gives us understanding-so far very much incomplete-of our competences and powers as persons.…”

Special Section, Counselling Psychology: A review of the scientist‐practitioner model: Reflections on its potential contribution to counselling psychology within the context of current health care trends

“…Although the scientist -practitioner model was developed within a positivist framework, the subsequent crisis of rationality in both the physical and social sciences (see Hacking, 1983;Manicas & Secord, 1983, for respective overviews) has caused a fundamental re-examination of what constitutes human reality and the methods best suited to its investigation. There have been two principal meta-theoretical responses to the crisis of rationality.…”

“…The belief that people create their own realities is a basic tenet of therapeutic practice and thus social constructionism has become a favoured approach to human enquiry among therapists (Trierweiler & Stricker, 1998). However, this response to the crisis of rationality must be considered in conjunction with the critical realist perspective advocated by Bhaskar (1975) and Manicas and Secord (1983).…”