Thursday, September 25, 2008

philosphy of psychology

UP students are taught to have an open mind. So i really tried to compose myself while reading this article and reminded myself to keep an open mind. psych majors, read it for yourselves.

i know that since i haven't taken anything like that yet, i have no right to judge it. but being a student from the discipline the they seem to be belittling by the phrasing of the questions, i couldn't help but feel a wee bit indignant. i really value my discipline and i see it as something that could be really helpful in society in various ways. the data gathered from psychological research has much to contribute to different fields--from the law, to the medical practice, to the educational system, to business and marketing, to architecture, to handling human resources, to engineering, to sports science, to mass communications, to the military... TO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. (and mind you, a good number from the aforementioned list cannot be comprehensively covered by neuroscience--something that the writer seems to insinuate that could have had already taken the place of psychology).

then again, i might be overreacting.

though i do honestly appreciate philosophy and i enjoy the classes, here's one final note:

AS PROVEN BY NUMEROUS STUDIES, there are just some things that do not seem logical, but are true. in short, not everything can be deducted by logic.


BUT YEAH. then again,
(1) I have yet to read sufficient material on that field (philo of psych)
(2) I should keep an open mind on different perspectives :)


Here is a quote from the article. Better read the whole thing. And read some more ;)

" On the surface, there is something strange about psychological claims. Psychology tells us that the complex behavior of human beings (and other sophisticated creatures) is mediated by seemingly unobservable mental states playing a role in seemingly hidden mental processes. What gives contemporary psychologists confidence in this account? Are these mental states made of matter? If they are, why are they not directly observable? If they are not, why should we believe in them? Are mental processes 'just' chemical processes? If they are, is psychology a kind of crude biochemistry? Or is it a really sophisticated biochemistry? Will psychology ultimately be replaced by neuroscience? (Indeed, has it already been replaced by neuroscience?)"

--> NOTICE, though, that in the beginning of the paragraph, there's the phrase "on the surface." At least, that's a good assertion. ALL THESE ARE JUST "ON THE SURFACE."

before any criticizing any matter, you can't just "know a bit about it." there is the danger of misinterpretation. indeed, you must FULLY know what it's all about.

And that is the very reason why i'm going to defer judgment until after i've read enough. (gut reactions lang naman kasi ang mga nauna kong sinabi.)

No comments: