The application of the methodologies and techniques of the natural sciences to human beings is still staunchly resisted by many critics. Discuss why this is so in relation to one or more controversies within the field of psychology.
The study of the phenomena related to human behaviour and human interaction is decisively different than the study of physical phenomena by the natural sciences.
This essay will argue from a historical and philosophical perspective the claim that one must be wary of applying the methodologies and techniques of the natural sciences to human beings, and that the two must be viewed as completely separate entities and distinct practices.
The notion of applying laws of the natural sciences to humans has given rise to significant dispute and controversy in the field of philosophy. Two such controversies debated in relation to applying natural scientific laws to human subjects to be outlined in this essay are that of “free will versus determinism” and “understanding versus explanation”.
In order for the argument to be valid, one must first distinguish between the basic principles of the two sciences. The human sciences encompass the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, political science and sociology. In these human sciences, a theory is researched and applied in order to understand a unique concept of human behaviour. On the other hand in the natural experimental sciences, consisting of biology, chemistry and physics, an experiment is carried out in order to test the cause and effect of a theory or hypothesis based on features of the physical world.
The application of the methodologies and techniques of the natural sciences to human beings is strongly opposed by critics, and many argue that meaningful ...
... middle of paper ...
...hriftlichen (1857/1858) und in der letzten gedruckten Fassung (1882)(Vol. 1). Frommann-Holzboog.
Grim, P. (2007). Free will in context: A contemporary philosophical perspective.
Behavioral sciences & the law, 25(2), 183-201.
Ingthorsson, R. D. (2013). The natural vs. The human sciences:: myth, methodology and ontology. Discusiones Filosóficas, 14(22), 25-41.
MacIntyre, A. (1985). How psychology makes itself true-or false.
Stueber, K. R. (2012). Understanding Versus Explanation? How to Think about the Distinction between the Human and the Natural Sciences. Inquiry, 55(1), 17-32.
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophical papers: Volume 2, philosophy and the human sciences
(Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Introduction to the Human Sciences. (1883). Wilhelm Dilthey. Retrieved 10 Feb. 2014. from https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/dilthey1.htm
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
In order to properly extricate the truth from the fallacies of psuedopsychology the scientific method can be used as a tool. The scientific method is a form of critical thinking based on a careful collection of evidence, accurate description and measurement, precise definition, controlled observation, and repeatable results (Jackson, 2008). This method is composed of 6 bodies: 1. Make Observations; 2. Defining a Problem; 3. Proposing a Hypothesis; 4. Gathering evidence/Test Hypothesis; 5. Interpret/Analyze Data and Draw Conclusions; 6.Publishing Results, many scientist retest their experiment for more accurate results.
Rationalism and empiricism were two philosophical schools in the 17th and 18th centuries, that were expressing opposite views on some subjects, including knowledge. While the debate between the rationalist and empiricist schools did not have any relationship to the study of psychology at the time, it has contributed greatly to facilitating the possibility of establishing the discipline of Psychology. This essay will describe the empiricist and rationalist debate, and will relate this debate to the history of psychology.
"Bioethics" has been used in the last 21 years to describe the investigation and study of ways in which advance in medicine and science impact upon our health, lives, society and environment. Bioethics is concerned with questions about basic human values and the rightness or wrongness of certain developments in life technology and medicine. These days when technology advancement allowed scientist to conduct test which may have “uncertain” consequences like Cloning. It’s necessary that people should know the pros and cons of such scientific procedures before they support its continued use. (9)
Steven Pinker lays the foundation for his book by highlighting three main philosophies that permeate society’s view of humanity and their historical context: The Blank Slate (empiricism), the Noble Savage (romanticism), and the Ghost in the Machine (dualism) (2002, p. 11). Pinker is correct to challenge previous philosophical frameworks as they skew the way scientific research has been conducted. Present-day scientific and social research will only benefit from an acknowledgement of innate human nature.
The study of psychology began as a theoretical subject a branch of ancient philosophy, and later as a part of biological sciences and physiology. However, over the years, it has grown into a rigorous science and a separate discipline, with its own sets of guidance and experimental techniques. This paper aims to study the various stages that the science of psychology passed through to reach its contemporary status, and their effects on its development. It begins with an overview of the historical and philosophical basis of psychology, discusses the development of the various schools of thought, and highlights their effects on contemporary personal and professional decision-making.
Free will is the ability for a person to make their own decisions without the constraints of necessity and fate, in other words, their actions are not determined. Determinism is the view that the initial conditions of the universe and all possible worlds are the same, including the laws of nature, causing all events to play out the same. Events are determined by the initial conditions. Two prominent positions advocated concerning the relation between free will and determinism are compatibilism and incompatibilism. In this essay I shall argue that compatibilism is true. Firstly, I shall explain what compatibilism is and consider possible objections and responses to the theory. I shall then examine incompatibilism and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses and argue that compatibilism is a stronger argument and, as a result, show why it is also true.
“Science cannot reveal the ultimate reality.” Emerging from Huxley’s keen awareness of the socio-political dimensions of science, his story rings a warning bell about knowledge as power that is especially relevant now that the predicted genetic revolution has arrived. Even though genetics may not be in the hands of despots, the “monks of science” still ought to set down their test tubes once in a while and make it their business to engage in public dialogue about how their research will be put to use in society.
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Scientific and technological advances are the products of man's inherent desire to improve the society in which he lives. Such progress often accompanies an expansion of intellectual boundaries. As one acquires knowledge, one also encounters new opportunities to be explored. This is true in the area of human genome research. The implications of The Human Genome Project and other attempts to further understand the human genetic code clearly demonstrate the basic principles of social benefit versus social cost. The desired effect is obviously one in which the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. The actual impact of such technology, however, remains only an estimate until this scientific advancement becomes a reality. It is out of this inability to predict how new technology may transform society that controversy arises. For if one estimates the value of knowledge and progress to ultimately influence society in a negative manner, then, perhaps such advancement should not be attempted. The Human Genome Project and other studies involving genetic research invite debate on the most controversial and highly moral issues that characterize and define the nature of life.
In this essay I am looking at where Psychology as a discipline has come from and what affects these early ideas have had on psychology today, Psychology as a whole has stemmed from a number of different areas of study from Physics to Biology,
Social Sciences consist of different types of sciences that involve looking at relationships among society. Although some people often confuse
A long time ago, possibly two hundred years ago, many major discoveries were made by scientists. The chemistry, mathematics and technology of that time was discovered and/or developed. However, one thing they could not understand was genetics which then resulted in them making assumptions and their own conclusions about different ethnic groups. Most of these assumptions were false, which is why they are classified as pseudo-scientific. These same assumptions and conclusions led to prejudice and discrimination for the races that were “classified” as inferior - the most prominent of these being black Africans. (Grant, 1999)
We have no reason to suppose that science will abate its influence upon trends and outcomes and many reasons to expect that it will continue to shape society's choices and dilemmas. What is unprofitable is to try to outguess the rate of advancing knowledge and the forms and effects of its application through technology. But it is a very different matter to recognize and array the emergent national and global issued confronting humans on this planet and to explore with care the contributions that science could make in managing such issues.