The Psychologist and Personal Bias
The realm of parascience is a particularly difficult one to treat in an objective, impartial manner. This is so for me, not only because it is an area of study usually defined as outside science, but also because of the personal convictions I have accumulated over a period of many years. I label these convictions scholarly conclusions. Those who disagree with me would call them personal biases.
Do I have an open or closed mind about scientific phenomena? Questions like this are at the center of much scientific controversy. In the scientific method, objectivity and impersonal concern with "the facts and only the facts" has long been a professional watchword. There are areas of experimental endeavor, however, in which "the facts" are hard to come by and the argument over trustworthy fact is fueled more by emotion than by incontrovertible evidence.
What I have laveled "parascience" is only one of many such areas of marked disagreement among dedicated researchers. In other scientific areas, personal bias is harder to detect, and often a psychologist is unaware that his view of "the facts" may appear distorted or blurred to others. If you one day join the ranks of social scientists, you will be confronted with the same challenge to your objectivity. As a social scientist you will be forced to decide when, or if, you will personally declare certain directions of exploration to be unscientific. You can begin this decision-making process now by examining your current convictions to see which can easily be changed if adequate proof is presented, which would require a remarkable level of unarguable evidence, and which convictions would be nearly impossible to abandon even in the face of startling "facts" to the contrary.
Since we are all human, this is what the pursuit of science is all about --the making of imperfect man into a more perfect instrument of factual discovery-. My own bias with regard to parascientific phenomena is apparent. More psychologists share my position than disagree with it, but each of you must decide these issues for yourself. History tells us with great certainty that the "fact" os the year 2000 will most assuredly not correspond with the "facts" of mind-1970s.
So, read what I have written, substract what you take to be my personal bias, and "keep your options open" so that tomorrow can be significantly better than today. You are well-advised to retain your skepticism about what you read and to consider the possibility that those of us who have gone before you have figured it out all wrong.
(Source : McNeil, E. B. The Psychology of Human Being. New York: Canfield Press, 1974.)
Do I have an open or closed mind about scientific phenomena? Questions like this are at the center of much scientific controversy. In the scientific method, objectivity and impersonal concern with "the facts and only the facts" has long been a professional watchword. There are areas of experimental endeavor, however, in which "the facts" are hard to come by and the argument over trustworthy fact is fueled more by emotion than by incontrovertible evidence.
What I have laveled "parascience" is only one of many such areas of marked disagreement among dedicated researchers. In other scientific areas, personal bias is harder to detect, and often a psychologist is unaware that his view of "the facts" may appear distorted or blurred to others. If you one day join the ranks of social scientists, you will be confronted with the same challenge to your objectivity. As a social scientist you will be forced to decide when, or if, you will personally declare certain directions of exploration to be unscientific. You can begin this decision-making process now by examining your current convictions to see which can easily be changed if adequate proof is presented, which would require a remarkable level of unarguable evidence, and which convictions would be nearly impossible to abandon even in the face of startling "facts" to the contrary.
Since we are all human, this is what the pursuit of science is all about --the making of imperfect man into a more perfect instrument of factual discovery-. My own bias with regard to parascientific phenomena is apparent. More psychologists share my position than disagree with it, but each of you must decide these issues for yourself. History tells us with great certainty that the "fact" os the year 2000 will most assuredly not correspond with the "facts" of mind-1970s.
So, read what I have written, substract what you take to be my personal bias, and "keep your options open" so that tomorrow can be significantly better than today. You are well-advised to retain your skepticism about what you read and to consider the possibility that those of us who have gone before you have figured it out all wrong.
(Source : McNeil, E. B. The Psychology of Human Being. New York: Canfield Press, 1974.)
× 『rui@96yR』【butterflyuu】 ×
Komentar
Posting Komentar