Why Psychology Organizations Should Accept the Challenge to Study the Scientific Method
In my book End the Biggest Educational and Intellectual Blunder in History, I challenge 17 organizations to study my claims about the misunderstandings about the scientific method. The American Psychological Society, the American Psychological Association, and the Cognitive Science Society should consider my challenge carefully.
Reason 1. The scientific method is a guide for mental activities. A broad review of the literature on the scientific method reveals that it is basically a guide to the stages of mental activity through which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields through problem origination, prevention, solution, and challenge of solution. While the early literature often states that the study of the scientific method falls in the domain of philosophers, they have largely forsaken it on the advice of Popper. Conant contributed to this by erroneously advising historians of science and philosophers that they would be doing a public service by emphasizing “that there is no such thing as the scientific method.”
In 1958 Easley falsified Conant’s non-existence claims, as I have in my various reports. In one report, I list more than 200 authors who acknowledge the existence of the scientific method. They are only some of the thousands who do so in their books and papers.
Since the scientific method is so concerned with mental activities and thinking skills, it follows that psychologists should play a more active role in studying, teaching, researching, and eliminating the misunderstandings that exist about the scientific method.
Reason 2. Emotions and personal attributes used in the scientific method. The literature points out that, in addition to thinking skills, human emotions and personal attributes play important roles in how the creative, logical, and technical methods are used at the various stages of the scientific method. Therefore, psychologists should continue, but more actively, to contribute their expertise to the development of the scientific method.
Reason 3. Social and ethical issues in science. There is a movement to emphasize the social and ethical issues in science. If psychologists are interested in these issues or anything else about science, they must be able to define science. Although there are many definitions of science, the one that predominates is: science is its method (not methods). One cannot understand and research the social and ethical issues in science while ignoring the scientific method and accepting the falsehood that it does not exist.
Reason 4. The integrity of the research process. For psychology to be recognized as a science, it must preserve the integrity of the research process, which is the scientific method system. In 1972 Feibleman pointed out that training of scientists in the scientific method is done mainly by the apprentice system. In an era of knowledge explosion, the method should be taught from early grade school, since it is a complete method of creative problem solving for all fields. Then professors would not be burdened with teaching elementary information about the scientific method and the procedural principles involved in its application.
