Rightly or wrongly it sometimes feels like a kind of ostracism, as if theorists with all their "ideas", "mechanisms" and "predictions" have something to be ashamed of. 10/n
-
-
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...
-
This is interesting because I think we might disagree on what a theory is. Or what a good theory is. It's kind of cool.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's unnerving to constantly be told I'm not in the same field because I am a modeller. Eventually maybe I will be in a different field. But it won't be because I'm a modeller.

-
Yes, this is another facet of the debate that is nuanced and frustrating. For example, though I do some modelling, I do not regard it as a field, and I also do experiments on a variety of topics, using various methods.
-
... where some of the discussion around norms assumes a homogenous group of scientists who are basically all testing whether A>B, just for different As and Bs.
-
A very narrow understanding of what science is, and in real danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy!
-
Exactly. Modelling is a way of doing science, not a field.
-
When, e.g., social psych people say I'm in a different field... I just puzzle. If so, why are there social psych people in the same Experimental Psychology department as me?
-
Why are there social psych modellers in the same lab as me?
End of conversation
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.