解决心理学的根本问题

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Theory & Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/09593543241254798
A. Alexander Beaujean
{"title":"解决心理学的根本问题","authors":"A. Alexander Beaujean","doi":"10.1177/09593543241254798","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The problem driving this debate issue is old, going back to at least to the 17th century. Yet, psychologists are no closer to solving the problem now than they were centuries ago. In this article I argue that the reason for the lack of definitive solution is that disputants share assumptions that make the problem unsolvable. More specifically, the problem is based on the assumptions that (a) the knowledge field of psychology is coherent and (b) natural scientists employ a common inquiry approach. Both are troublesome. As such, instead of asking questions such as “Should psychologists follow the natural sciences?” it would be much more meaningful to ask questions such as “What does it look like for psychologists in this subfield to follow a scientific approach?”","PeriodicalId":47640,"journal":{"name":"Theory & Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards solving psychology’s fundamental problem\",\"authors\":\"A. Alexander Beaujean\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09593543241254798\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The problem driving this debate issue is old, going back to at least to the 17th century. Yet, psychologists are no closer to solving the problem now than they were centuries ago. In this article I argue that the reason for the lack of definitive solution is that disputants share assumptions that make the problem unsolvable. More specifically, the problem is based on the assumptions that (a) the knowledge field of psychology is coherent and (b) natural scientists employ a common inquiry approach. Both are troublesome. As such, instead of asking questions such as “Should psychologists follow the natural sciences?” it would be much more meaningful to ask questions such as “What does it look like for psychologists in this subfield to follow a scientific approach?”\",\"PeriodicalId\":47640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory & Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory & Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241254798\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241254798","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引发这场辩论的问题由来已久,至少可以追溯到 17 世纪。然而,与几个世纪前相比,心理学家们现在并没有更接近于解决这个问题。在这篇文章中,我认为之所以没有明确的解决方案,是因为争论者们都有一些使问题无法解决的假设。更具体地说,这个问题基于以下假设:(a) 心理学知识领域是连贯的;(b) 自然科学家采用共同的探究方法。这两点都很麻烦。因此,与其问 "心理学家是否应该遵循自然科学?"这样的问题,不如问 "这个子领域的心理学家遵循科学方法是什么样的?"这样的问题更有意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards solving psychology’s fundamental problem
The problem driving this debate issue is old, going back to at least to the 17th century. Yet, psychologists are no closer to solving the problem now than they were centuries ago. In this article I argue that the reason for the lack of definitive solution is that disputants share assumptions that make the problem unsolvable. More specifically, the problem is based on the assumptions that (a) the knowledge field of psychology is coherent and (b) natural scientists employ a common inquiry approach. Both are troublesome. As such, instead of asking questions such as “Should psychologists follow the natural sciences?” it would be much more meaningful to ask questions such as “What does it look like for psychologists in this subfield to follow a scientific approach?”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theory & Psychology
Theory & Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Theory & Psychology is a fully peer reviewed forum for theoretical and meta-theoretical analysis in psychology. It focuses on the emergent themes at the centre of contemporary psychological debate. Its principal aim is to foster theoretical dialogue and innovation within the discipline, serving an integrative role for a wide psychological audience. Theory & Psychology publishes scholarly and expository papers which explore significant theoretical developments within and across such specific sub-areas as: cognitive, social, personality, developmental, clinical, perceptual or biological psychology.
期刊最新文献
Facing up to the hardest problem: The human information field and the ontological primacy of subjective consciousness Epistemic inequality in the digital era: Unpacking biases in digital mental health Making sense of signs: Readjusting William Stern’s personological value theory The Gibsonian movement and Koffka’s Principles of Gestalt Psychology Wise thoughts on phronesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1