To: RadPsyNet-Members@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Sue Poole

From: Andrew Phelps <phelps@cwnet.com>

Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 13:08:41 -0700

Subject: Re: [RadPsyNet-Members] Re: reforming a useless profession? [was: opportunities to grow]

 

Hi:

At 05:45 AM 5/23/2003 -0000, Aaa wrote:

3. I agree Psychology is dangerous. But I don't think it should be killed. I think its dying quickly, through its own efforts. I think the roots of its mortal illness are in its embrace of Science. When Psychology was pre-Scientific it was, in many ways, better off. It wasn't exactly revolutionary, but it was better. When Psychology began trying very hard to compete with the physicians, and to legitimize itself on the coattails of Science, it killed itself. Anybody here ever take Psychology courses in the 1970's? Oy!!

Yes, 2nd B.A., U.C. Berkeley, 1977.  :-)

Obviously that "coattails of Science" stuff was bunkum.

.. Of course, in the activity of studying their patients, they have to give up how Science understands 'study', i.e. the study of patients that therapists do is not that so-called objective, disinterested study that Science touts.

Well, but for me, the point is to go to the 'next level'. Actually re-think the operant notion of Science, esp. Cartesian methodology & its friends & relations. Vico's New Science (version #2, 1744) was a creative effort to do this, from that era.

Presently there's lots going on in theoretical psychology, which is banging at the gates of 'pre-science'. Whether it's Gergen's psychodiagnostics work or Shotter's work on the 'philosophy of involvement' (which relates directly to giving up what you call "how Science understands 'study'") or many, many other things from a wide variety of perspectives.

Birnam Wood, I'm interested to report, is on its way to Dunsinane.

Andrew Phelps, Ph.D. (mathematics),

who is 'merely' a mental health client activist