Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

'A Science of Man' to transcend 'The Man of Science'

  1. Jul 2, 2007 #1
    ‘A Science of Man’ to transcend ‘The Man of Science’

    Psychology, which began as protest against religion, has evolved into a reaffirmation of a non material aspect of our human nature. I would say that this non material aspect is not yet readily definable but is referred to as a ‘spiritual’ aspect of our nature; this spiritual aspect transcends our material nature but need not be synonymous with that aspect of human nature that religion wishes to focus upon and define.

    I think that a person who wishes to comprehend what the science of psychology offers us must hold in abeyance their inclination to dismiss anything that does not fit their present categories of knowledge. If we add to our standard ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ attitudes a button for ‘hold judgment until better informed’ we might learn much important knowledge and might just develop an understanding of what we are and why we do the things we do.

    Modern depth psychology consists of varied theories interpreting the “unconscious depths” of wo/man; these theories reverse some of the earlier concepts and focus not only upon “a new conception of human personality, but a new approach to art and religions as well as change in the way we see ourselves in history.”

    The principal figures in this depth psychology are Sigmund Freud and his three protégés Alfred Adler, C.G. Jung, and Otto Rank. These individuals are considered to be the Big Four depth psychology. They are like branches sprouting from the same tree trunk.

    Psychology attempts to understand the modifications in human existence resulting from the changes in deeply held patterns of culture of the accustomed national or tribal ways of life before the industrial revolution. These traditional ways of the past provided “built-in psychic security for the individual…But when the old groups were physically broken up and their members were scattered in the factories of the cities, or when, for any of many reasons, the faith in their teachings was gone, the individual was left unprotected.”

    The materialistic and mechanistic model of human nature that evolved from the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment coupled with the modern success in technology has produced a citizenry in Western society that is enchanted with the view of human nature that idolizes the Man of Science.

    The man in the Man of Science is a cipher. The scientific method is a process wherein the human agent is best when he or she is cleansed of many humanistic characteristics. Often a robot would better serve as the scientist than would a human.

    The man in the Science of Man is center stage. The man, either he or she, is the major participant and the major object of comprehension in all activities that form the focus of a Science of Man.

    I think that cognitive science coupled with the sciences of psychology, psychoanalysis, sociology, and anthropology now provide us with knowledge of human nature that makes possible a Science of Man that goes well beyond this mechanistic view of human nature. I also am led to conclude that the unconscious is the most important aspect of man and woman that must be studied in a Science of Man.

    Quotes from “The Death and Rebirth of Psychology”—Ira Progoff

    Questions for discussion.

    Can you tolerate a mode of self-learning that includes the attitude of “hold judgment until better informed”?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 3, 2007 #2
    There is a difference between holding judgment, that is, facts as absolute truth and evaluating probability. Science does not pretend to present absolute truths. Also, psychology is an umbrella term and much of it isn't exactly hard science.
  4. Jul 3, 2007 #3

    What is the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' science?
  5. Jul 3, 2007 #4
    Hard science is a term used to describe certain fields of the natural sciences, usually physics, geology, chemistry, and many fields of biology.

    Soft Science is a colloquial term, often used for academic research or scholarship which is purportedly "scientific" while its adherence to or rigor of scientific method is considered to be lacking, not based on reproducible experimental data, and/or a mathematical explanation of that data.

    'Hard' and 'Soft' is actually a false dichotomy.

    There is science and then things that attempt to call themselves science for using bits of scientific methodology here and there.
  6. Jul 3, 2007 #5

    I often have respnders who make that same statement about psychology not being a science. Do any people such as Popper or Kuhn agree with that opinion or is it just some kind of thing people like to say to indicate how knowledgable they are?
  7. Jul 3, 2007 #6
  8. Jul 3, 2007 #7
    This seems to be science of to come scientists liberated from the academia illusions of stable/linearized/well-defined/gaussian-statistic-obeying/only-what-i-see-exists/non-evolving/non-recursive real world systems, events, and structures. (especially human psyche, economics, social sciences, but also as far as classical mechics)
  9. Jul 4, 2007 #8
    Could you quote for me the qualified authorities' comments. These threads are usually just sophomores leading sophomores, i.e. the blind leading the blind.
  10. Jul 4, 2007 #9
    This seems like more sophomoric bluff and bluster.
  11. Jul 4, 2007 #10
    Look at the post by the PF mentor(s), if you do not have the will to do research on your own.
  12. Jul 4, 2007 #11
    Indeed all that bluster are invalid assumptions which are mostly inattentatively in the philosophy of "scientists". I just crammed it all into one ugly sentence which I agree is not constructive, but it allowed me not to burst into pieces. Reading into modern psychology and biology, I wonder how one is free of frustration with this nonsense comming out. For godsakes even the evolution is taken under wrong premises of only what we see is there. Yet, we clearly observe that most species did not even leave marks after their extinsion. Im complaining about philosophy of scientists not about their methods and/or adequacy.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook