Good science, bad science [From Mary]

[from Mary Powers (951109)]

to Bruce Abbott:

This wrangle about whether psychologists are good scientists or
psychology a good science is not really the issue (to me). Yes
to the first and no to the second.

On the second point, psychology is as good as it is going to get
given that it is based on an open loop model. Very similar to
the excellent work on epicycles, plogiston, etc.

As for the first. I have no doubt that you and your colleagues,
whether EABers, cognitivists, or whatever, are for the most part
all that one could ask for as scientists. But from the
perspective of someone attempting to introduce a new idea, all
these worthy individuals constitute an establishment of highly
resistant brickheads, displaying a severe lack of comprehension,
interest, openmindedness, and generosity of spirit. With a few
notable exceptions, such as Don Campbell, Hugh Petrie, and Jim
Bohannan, all of Northwestern University at the time (1972) who
sponsored Bill's book with a publisher.

If you don't agree with the concept of an establishment, consider
your own case. You have said that you read BCP 20 years ago, and
found it interesting. Despite your interest, you dropped it
entirely until recently. You had a mainline thread of research
which was gaining you acceptance and publication, expectations as
to course content to fulfill as a teacher, and a perfectly
natural desire for career advancement and tenure - all of which
would have been at risk. My quibble is with the fact that
embracing and exploring PCT would have been a risk - has been a
risk, and for some has had consequences from unpleasant to
devastating. This is what I mean by the failure of psychologists
_as scientists_, that they have come up short on the qualities
mentioned above, and that in consequence PCT people and ideas
have largely been not merely misunderstood, but ignored, shunned,
rejected, and bad-mouthed.

Judging from what I've read in Science and elsewhere about the
way paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, linguists, etc.
behave towards one another, very few scientists really act like
the noble souls school children are brainwashed to believe in.
But alternative hypotheses in those fields do seem to get more of
an airing than PCT in psychology. Possibly because PCT is far
more of a threat to _all_ currently popular brands of psychology,
which, as I said in the beginning, are basically open-loop, and
in addition, as had been said numerous times lately, carry
implicit assumptions into the data - the very labelling of the
data - that obviates (sadly) much hard and honest work.

Mary P.