Brief Lecture Notes 1 (revised September 1, 2006) -- Text Chapter 1
These brief lecture notes are no substitute for attendance at lecture, believe me! However, they can serve as rough lecture outlines and as guides for exam review. Key terms to know are presented in bold font; note also the study questions at the end of each unit.
Specific textbook page references are sprinkled throughout the notes below; watch for them, as they can help guide your reading of the text, which you should actively be doing!
The word "psychology" literally means "the science of the mind" (psyche = self, soul, mind; logos = science, study, reason, word). However, this common-sense definition of the field poses some difficulties, because to study the mind necessitates reliance on self-report data. One way to avoid the problems associated with self-report is to construct an alternative definition of the field and to define it as "the science of observable behavior". This second approach can lay claim to being more scientifically objective, yet seriously limits the range of topics that can be studied by psychologists. The history of the science can be viewed in terms of a pendulum swing between these cognitivist and behaviorist perspectives. The textbook discussion on pages 20-27 can be summarized in terms of this pendulum swing; can you find illustrations or evidences of that idea in your text reading?
To understand how this course is organized, as well as how psychology is related to other academic disciplines, it's necessary to understand the concepts of reductionism and of levels of explanation or levels of analysis(see textbook page 28) The idea of reductionism is an important one but often difficult for students to grasp. My explanation below will begin with a philosophical overview (rooted in the approach of Herman Dooyeweerd), then will follow with some specific examples.
Let's begin with the notion of aspects. Without getting too technical, we can think of this term as connoting different elements or components of reality, such as the physical, social, economic, linguistic, ethical, and so forth. With regard to human beings at least, we can view a human being through each of these various "lenses". The question of reductionism has to do with the presumed relationship among these different aspects.
To be a reductionist is to argue that one (or more) of these aspects are primary in that they "explain themselves" or are fundamental, while the other aspects are derivative in that the remaining aspects flow out of, stem from, or are caused or created by the primary aspect(s) in some way. For instance, a person who says that "the only fundamental reality is matter, and everything else in the universe, even if it seems immaterial (such as human consciousness, human reasoning, or human values), stems from some complex combination of matter". It is in this sense that the materialist might say, somewhat simplistically, that "matter is the only reality"; not that other aspects are completely illusory, but that they only exist because matter exists and has the properties that it does.
Materialistic reductionism of this sort is the most common type within contemporary Western culture, but in fact, any aspect of reality could be set up as a foundational reality in this sense. Other kinds of reductionism -- such as the idea that "everything is number" or "everything is consciousness" -- seem odd to many people in our culture, but technically speaking they are just as illustrative of reductionism as is the form of reductionism with which we are most familiar. (Most people who call themselves reductionists in our culture are materialistic reductionists, either of the "hard" variety -- there is nothing but matter -- or of the "soft" variety -- other aspects exist, but they are all derivative of matter.)
The opposite of reductionism, then, is the belief that all the aspects have are equally "real" in the sense that they do not fundamentally derive from each other. Other ways of saying this is that "reality is multiaspectual" or that "the aspects are irreducible" or that "reality is irreducibly complex".
Philosophically, both views have religious roots in the deepest sense of the term in that both must posit that something is foundational (eternally existent or non-contingent). Reductionists claim that some aspect of the cosmos has those properties. Nonreductionists must logically assert that all of the aspects are derivative of a cause external to, or transcendent over, the cosmos (such as God). Since neither view can be "proven" (because any "proofs" of either reductionism or nonreductionism involve a form of circular reasoning or affirming the consequent, though demonstrating the universality of that would require too lengthy a detour here), both involve faith commitments (existential commitments or self-evidency beliefs). To state the obvious, science can't prove or disprove the correctness of reductionism. Some scientists presume it in their work, others do not -- as we'll see throughout the course.
To take one specific example, those who believe that the mind can be explained completely in terms of an understanding of physical brain processes are reductionists; those who deny that this is possible are nonreductionists. We'll be discussing this issue in some more detail in Unit 3, but see the text discussion on pages 17-18 for a brief introductory overview. From that discussion and other elements of the textbook reading, can you see evidence to support the notion that the text authors are more reductionistic than your instructor is? How do you know?
A reductionistic statement, to phrase things in a slightly different way, is one that attempts to explain complex phenomena in simpler terms (thus implying that the more complex concepts or levels of explanation are unnecessary). Let's look at some reductionistic statements to help make this concept clear:
1. Man is just an animal.
2. Love is nothing but an instinct.
3. What we call the "mind" is simply the brain in action.
4. Societies are nothing more than collections of individuals.
Note the words "just", "nothing but", "simply", "nothing more than". Words and phrases like these, or similar ones ("only", "merely") are often, though not always, clues to reductionism. (Don't apply that test blindly or thoughtlessly, though.) What these four statements have in common is the notion that something that appears to be inherently complex and multifaceted really isn't, and can be reduced to something simpler.
Using this idea as a guide, we can arrange many (unfortunately not all) of the academic disciplines of the university -- each of which is oriented around a different aspect -- along a continuum from the lowest (simplest or most molecular) to the highest (most complex or molar) levels of explanation. At the bottom of the pyramid might be physics, since the most reductionistic view possible is that if we understand quantum mechanics, we understand everything, since the entire universe (from this view, anyway) is composed of the same subatomic "stuff". The hierarchy might look like this:
Philosophy
Sociology
Psychology
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
As we ascend the ladder, the "unit of analysis" gets larger and larger, more and more complex:
Humanity in the whole or the abstract
Groups of individuals (societies, cultures)
Individual persons
Cells, tissues, organs, organ systems
Molecules, compounds
Subatomic particles
To be a reductionist is to draw a line partway up this ladder and to say to the disciplines above the line, "We have no need of you": that is, to suggest that a thorough understanding of concepts below the line is sufficient to explain all known phenomena. Thus, for instance, reductionistic statement #1 above can be rephrased as saying, "Psychology is unnecessary, since if we truly understand biology, we understand all that can be known about human beings."
Psychologists don't seem to agree with each other about much, as we'll see in this course, because psychology is what Thomas Kuhn would call a nonparadigmatic science. (A paradigm is a set of core assumptions that all individuals in a given field of study share or take for granted.) Thus, we'll find lots of interesting disputes about debatable issues in this course: the issue of reductionism is the first of many. Some psychologists are reductionists; others, like myself, are not. Look for instances of reductionistic or nonreductionistic thinking throughout the course.
The course is organized along the lines implied above: after completing this unit and the next (which are introductory in character), we'll start at the boundary between biology and psychology and move through the field, ending at the boundary between psychology and sociology. (Thus, for those of you whose interests are less reductionistic, the course will get more and more interesting as we go along.)
Other examples of issues about which psychologists disagree, which will play a role throughout the course:
1. Some psychologists are nativists, emphasizing the role of hereditary, inborn, innate, or genetic influences on cognition and behavior. Others are empiricists, emphasizing the role of learning, environment, upbringing, or situational influences. Your text discusses this same point under the slightly different rubric of "nature vs. nurture" (pages 16-17).
2. Some psychologists take a nomothetic approach to the field, meaning that they emphasize ways in which all individuals are alike, searching for general laws or principles of behavior which are universally applicable. Others take an idiographic approach, emphasizing ways in which each individual is unique, or focusing on the differences between persons.
Study Guide for Unit 1
1. What are two definitions of psychology? How do they differ? What is meant by self-report data, and what role does it play in each approach to psychology? What are some problems associated with the use of self-report data? How can the history of psychology be understood in terms of the interplay between the two definitions of the field? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach?
2. What is meant by reductionism? Give some examples of reductionistic statements and explain why they are reductionistic. What implications does the issue of reductionism have? How can this concept be used to outline (a) the relationship between psychology and other academic disciplines, (b) the organization of this course?
3. What is a paradigm? What does it mean to say that psychology is a non-paradigmatic science? What implications does this fact have?
4. How do nativist and empiricist views of psychology differ? Nomothetic and idiographic views?