... "misunderstood" is being charitable really, because it often seems as if the more nuanced points modellers make are systematically discounted. 9/n
-
-
Like I'd agree with the ideas if his 7-year-old grandson said them, the issue is that some people might be in psychology and have a different take not because of a fear or prereg (whatever that means TBH) but because there's a deep illogic there for our work.
-
In my view the nature of the argument has more to do with general human failings (we fall back on "us" v "them" when we need to change people's minds), but yes, I think scientists in general sometimes fear to go too deep (philosophy)...
-
... and of course we can point to the overall success of the enterprise as evidence that not thinking too deeply works. At least Physics, Chemistry and Biology can.
-
... But those disciplines have well developed theories. Psychology has not really got that far, yet. Understandable for the first 100 years, not so much now.
-
I'm not convinced biology has better theories than psychology to be honest.
-
Ha! Well, you know - DNA, RNA, genes, selection etc. Admittedly many of these feel like established empirical facts already, but they started as theories. I struggle to think of comparable ideas in Psychology.
-
If "DNA" is a good example in your opinion of a theory what stops "memory" from being a good one, or "neurons" or "learning"? Asking because I genuinely don't think psych is that bad for theories given these comparisons, but we can improve a lot.
-
First, you have a point - and there is some sophistication about psychological ideas about memory. But I think the level of detail about mechanisms like e.g., protein transcription (which I am getting at with the DNA shorthand) are much more advanced...
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.