Picking up from John's helpful comments on the differences between scientific research and scientism, what do people make of this; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9631964.stm?
Danny
________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Cromby [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 March 2012 11:49
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] science / 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
It seems helpful here to make some distinctions: between science in psychology and science in general, and between science per se, and scientism.
I take your point Greta that science has yielded enormous benefits. That it has done so whilst also contributing to and furthering many of our problems simply reinforces earlier comments to the effect that science is in no sense separate from society and that it is dangerously naive to think otherwise. In a capitalist society we get capitalist science: driven by competition and shaped by the imperatives of the profit motive, frequently directed at objectionable ends, often aimed at short term rather than long term goals, and so on. Hence 'science' in psychology is largely predicated on notions of persons as isolated monads making rational choices, is consistently biased toward prediction and control, is frequently generative of the forms of general, abstract, decontextualised knowledge most useful to bureaucrats and managers, tends to treat subjectivity as problem rather than as a resource, etc. It is on these kinds of grounds that Ian Parker characterises much psychology as 'fake science': it has many ofthe superficial trappings of science - borrowed inappropriately from physics (e.g. Harre) and shaped in applied settings by governance and regulation imperatives such as measurement in education (e.g. Danziger) - but the ontological and methodological suppositions it has imported, whilst appropriate to a subject matter of inorganic particles, are not appropriate to reflexive beings who are guided by culturally normative meanings and not simply jiggled by Newtonian forces.
That said, science in general is nevertheless better by far than many of the alternatives. Darwin's work was influenced by the tendencies to determinism and grand narratives that characterised his era, and was infused with some of the toxic presumptions of Malthus. But I still hold his account as preferable by far to those associated with so-called intelligent design.
I am opposed, though, to scientism - which we might roughly define as the dogmatic choice of narrowly scientific methodologies in conjunction with an ideological stance that attempts to reduce all knowledge to that which is proximally and discretely measurable. It seems to me that psychology regularly falls prey to scientism when it consistently favours large samples, quantitative methods and analyses of statistical significance without first seriously exploring the trade-offs and disadvantages that those preferences inevitably introduce.
J.
*****************************************************************
actually science is a method, a tool, not a concept,
some of you guys seem to come from the flat earth society, living in the chocolate shop of the world, you enjoy all the benefits of scientific progress, such as central heating, electric light and automobiles, yet deride them as if they were nothing, while the rest of the world is desiring those same benefits, seems hypocritical to me,
Greta
Hi Greta,
I think it would help us all follow the many different threads of discussion if we distinguished different ones, roughly in the subject line so I have renamed this one 'science / 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes''
There have been, over a very long time, many different frames of reference, which serve different interests, within which science has been discussed. These include philosophy of science, history of science, sociology of knowledge, critical theory, political rhetoric, biographised accounts by scientists etc etc. Certainly there is little consensus: what is positioned as exemplary science at one time is positioned as mumbo jumbo at another; what scientists say they do is often different from what they actually do. etc etc. Isaac Newton is usually positioned in school textbooks and dominant discourses of 'science' as a founder of modern science but scholarship in the history of science has demonstrated discourses of alchemy and magic to be dominant in much of his work: http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/60/1/25.full
The quotation you offer from Ronnie Hawkins relays a discourse within which science is positioned as having realist ontological and objectivist assumptions, a distortion of social constructionism is reproduced - one which is more like a form of individual interpretivist constructivism - and a conspiracy theory invoked to explain politics in terms of the psy states of conservatives (what conservatives fear, want etc).
From my perspective, science is usefully seen as a set of practices and associated knowledges through which the claims of some are given the status of 'truth' and those of others are given the status of opinion / belief / misconception. The detail of how this 'truthing' is accomplished varies from time to time, place to place and domain to domain. The important thing is not to debate what science 'is' or to take seriously how it is defended by those who benefit from it (or would like to) but how it functions in relation to power, that is . . . how it constructs what it purports to study, which interests it serves etc.
On this list I assume many of us will be interested in how community psychology, in so far as it is a 'science', functions i.e. how it constructs what it purports to study, which interests it serves etc.
David
From: Greta Sykes <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, 24 March 2012, 12:47
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
Ronnie Hawkins (Chuluota, Florida, New Scientist, 17.3.12) writes:
Science atttempts to understand things in a way that is independent of our thoughts about them. Our social constructions, on the other hand, would not exist outside of our shared web of beliefs, desires, intentions and expectations. We have become so preoccupied with that socially constructed symbol we call money (or other symbolic phenomenological constructs (my addition), that we have forgotten the total dependence of the economy (and our thought processes, see Vygotsky (my addition) upon ecology, and seem to be destabilising the latter upon the order of the former.
What most conservatives fear is that the public wiill one day see this, begin to integrate scientific knowledge into their world view, and restore proper dependency relations, changing our social institutions accordingly. What the conservatives want to conserve is an abstract conceptual scheme that is out of touch with reality, not the concrete Earth systems that actually support our lives and are now urgently in need of conversation.
Little wonder that they seek to cast doubt not only on climate change but also on evolution and the origins of life. The battle for humanity's future, therefore, must ber recognised as a battle over the nature of reality itself,
Greta
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of COMBES Helen A [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 22 March 2012 15:57
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
I am inclined to agree with Mark. There is very little evidence around theory of mind. Evil = 0 empathy makes no sense to me, but maybe that’s because I have no theory of mind. Indeed how do we study what is not there. How do I decide what is moral? Morality changes across contexts. We can study the context in which acts occur but to reify an abstract concept or metaphor in order to scientifically study it seems bizarre to me.
Helen
Helen Combes, DClinPsy, CPsychol
Principal Clinical Lecturer, Shropshire and Staffordshire DClinPsy
Registered Clinical Psychologist
(01782) 295803.
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Greta Sykes
Sent: 22 March 2012 15:22
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
Hi Steph,
Thanks you for the film, it’s fascinating,
I agree with your use of the word science, surely any area of knowledge should be ‘shined’ upon in this way, especially morality, which this government never mentions, neither do they mention justice, how odd and obvious,
Greta
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephanie Meadows
Sent: 20 March 2012 07:40
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
Hi Mark and Greta
I thought a 'purpose' of science as a practice is to shine clarity on an object/area of study, so surely any area of curiosity is up for being scientifically examined... just requires the imagination to find the method... surely morality is an area open for examination (I would welcome this as 'morality' can be so manipulative in peoples lives).
Also 'zero degrees empathy' is a good start... my own experiences of what I might call evil have certainly had that quality of experience... and to measure this? best not to set up experiments..! but interviewing would be a method to start with.
With regard to the original posting...thanks to all who have offered suggestions. I have found a great film about Freud's nephew and the creation of consumer consciousness and desire which is added as an attachment ,
Steph
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:32:50 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Hi Greta,
I must say I struggle to understand (a) how anyone could "scientifically engage" with what is a moral, not a 'scientific', issue and (b) even assuming that these were not utterly incommensurable spheres, how on earth one "scientifically" measures 'zero degrees of empathy' is beyond me. Still there isn't a lot of "science" behind ToM either (but a similar lack of philosophy of science) - so at least the project is consistent ;)
Cheers
M
On 19 March 2012 19:17, Greta Sykes <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Hi,
you could have a look at Simon Baron-Cohen's recent book in which he defines evil as 'zero degrees empathy' in order to begina process that helps us to scientifically engage with the subject,
Greta
________________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Mark Rapley [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 15 March 2012 23:31
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new clothes'
Hi Stephanie
How would I define evil? I'd resist that to the n-th degree. Further, 1. I
think any community of like minded members knows what 'evil' means... and it
may mean very different things to and in different communities of use: but
I'm pretty sure we would use it interchangeably with each other knowing
precisely what the referents were. It's a language game. 2. I think you
actually made my point when you said "feeling 'mad' ... kind of off
balance". What exactly is lacking from those "definitions" aside from formal
professional ratification? Nothing I can see.
Hope this isn't "slippery"!!!
M
Mark Rapley, PhD,
Professor of Clinical Psychology,
Programme Director - Doctoral Degree in Clinical Psychology,
School of Psychology,
The University of East London,
Stratford Campus,
Water Lane,
London, E15 4LZ,
U.K.
Tel: +44 (0)208 223 6392 (Direct)
Tel: +44 (0)208 223 4567 (Messages)
Tel: +44 (0)7951 908409 (Mobile)
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Stephanie
Meadows
Sent: Thu 3/15/2012 16:01
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's
new clothes'
Thanks Mark for references and suggestions of more accurate words... what
would you use for the experience of feeling 'mad'? I could do with some more
clear terminology; and I don't mean mad with rage, but kind of off balance.
Also the word 'evil' seems as slippery as 'mad' to me... how would you define
it?
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:04:33 +0000
From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's
new clothes'
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
David Healy's work comes close - try Let Them Eat Prozac: The Unhealthy
Relationship Between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Depression and Shaping
the Intimate. Influences on the Experience of Everyday Nerves. Social Studies
of Science 34, 219-245. (both 2004). His blog is at
http://davidhealy.org/
Ray Moynihan's work is also excellent: see Selling Sickness: How the worlds
biggest drug companies are turning us all into patients (and the rest!!! at
http://raymoynihan.com/books/ )
Vis a vis your second point, I get where you are coming from but think it's
long overdue that we on this list, of all people, stopped using 'mad' as a
metaphor for unwanted conduct (see: Sarbin, T. R. (1990). Metaphors of
unwanted conduct: A historical sketch. In D. W. Leary (Ed), Metaphors in the
history of psychology (pp. 300-330). New York: Cambridge University Press) -
even lightheartedly (see also shameless plug here:
http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?pid=393144). We have plenty of
good enough words for the ways of behaving that you identify as deplorable
without resorting to medicalised terminology - avarice, greed, hubris (sans
'syndrome'), duplicity, evil and the rest.
M
On 14 March 2012 23:43, Annie Mitchell <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
David Owen wrote a book in which he invented a term: hubris syndrome - to
describe the madness of power in political leaders,. He said about Tony
Blair and George Bush - They'd stopped listening and were behaving
recklessly, taking their instructions direct from the Almighty. An almost
messianic fervour led to the biggest foreign policy blunder for a century:
the invasion of Iraq. But Owen was a politician and doctor himself, so his
illness category was very medical model - i like your gold hoarding disorder
better, or what about the lie to keep them numb and confused while we make
our massive profits disorder?
Annie x
________________________________
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Stephanie Meadows
[[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: 14 March 2012 21:43
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] 'the war without bullets' and 'the emperor's new
clothes'
Disclaimer... decided to use the word 'mad'; hope this is PC with all !!!
There have been interesting past discussions on the social constuction of
madness via the DSM ie.making you think you are mad when you're not.
I would be interested in anyone's views/ links to writings on actual
madness/ psychological distress being intentionally cultivated via the media
in order to disorientate and control ie.making you feel mad when you would
normally feel ok, maybe resulting in inability to think straight and make
good decisions... (and maybe 'buy products', or 'go indoors and stop making a
fuss').
people can be so humble ... they often doubt their own sanity before
questioning the sanity of their 'leaders'
maybe we don't like to face the idea that our 'leaders' may be 'mad'
themselves (even though we joke about it)
but what if they really were? (how about obsessional gold hoarding disorder
maybe that could maybe make it into the DSM with our support!)
To be 'resilient', people will need a new gameplan than trying to be 'good'
and 'follow the leader'
I look forward to any of your comments
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> To unsubscribe or to
change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact
Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit
the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
--
Mark
+44 7591 908 409
+44 203 083 3872
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact
Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit
the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact
Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit
the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
--
Mark
+44 7591 908 409
+44 203 083 3872
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
--
********************************************************
John Cromby
Psychology, SSEHS
Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leics
LE11 3TU England UK
Tel: 01509 223000
Personal webpage:http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
********************************************************
___________________________________ There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
___________________________________
There is a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK (to post contact Grant [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
|
