Psychology
Paradigms and Falsifiability
Paradigms in psychology refer to the overarching theories and frameworks that guide research and understanding of human behavior. Falsifiability is the principle that scientific theories must be testable and potentially disprovable through empirical evidence. In psychology, the concept of falsifiability is important for ensuring that theories and hypotheses can be rigorously tested and refined.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
7 Key excerpts on "Paradigms and Falsifiability"
eBook - PDF- Pauline Maclaran, Michael Saren, Barbara Stern, Mark Tadajewski, Pauline Maclaran, Michael Saren, Barbara Stern, Mark Tadajewski(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications Ltd(Publisher)
On these grounds, Fay is rightly critical of social scientists who claim they start out without any preconcep-tions; being epistemologically so self-conscious leads to narcissistic self-display. The reason for the absence of law-like (uni-versal) generalizations in social science is, as already suggested, that explanations that possess any depth will be context-dependent and context-defined. Moreover, there are just too many contexts to suggest laws while people are not exact tokens of each other, even biologically. The choice of method will relate to the questions being asked and the paradigm adopted. If the paradigm adopted eschews unobservable mental events as does behav-iorism, the questions asked will relate to external influences and methods measuring such influences. Similarly, a cognitive model based on a paradigm derived from the computer metaphor will find it difficult to deal with questions about motivation and emotion and will fall back on laboratory-type methods. WHAT ARE THE METHODS USED IN APPLYING A SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM OR EXPLANATORY SYSTEM? The adoption of a specific paradigm implies the adoption of a conceptual lens through which to view the area of interest. A para-digm suggests the questions that might be asked but, most of all, it guides the researcher in interpreting the resulting ‘facts’ selected. If interpretation is based on a paradigm, model or theory, the term ‘imputational inter-pretation’ is used, since we impute onto the behavior of interest a way of behaving in line with the paradigm, model or theory. In impu-tational interpretation, we take our paradigm and assess how far it explains or can be applied to the relevant behavior or predicts outcomes of interest (Krausz, 1993).
eBook - PDF- W.J. Baker, M.E. Hyland, H. van Rappard, A.W. Staats(Authors)
- 1986(Publication Date)
- North Holland(Publisher)
The last century has included a variety of attempts to create or discover a fundamental grounding for psychology; an absolute and objective base which would enable the systematic and scientific development of the discipline. Candi - dates for this base have included introspection, behavior, logical structure, phenomena, and linguistic analysis. Assuming that psychology could be a unified discipline, in Kuhn 's (1962) terms, psychology is preparadigmatic and psychologists have tended to imagine that a paradigm would provide them with some set of facts, or methods which would become the buil- 'The ideas herein were first developed in my PhD thesis while MRC scholar at the Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge. Most of this paper was developed at the Uni- versity of Lethbridge while I was in receipt of a grant from the Alberta Law Founda- tion. Many people's thoughts are rewritten into this work, but I would like to especially thank Keith Humphrey, John Morton, Nick Radin. and John Vokey, also Arthur Staats for many editorial suggestions. 102 Theoretical Psychology ding - blocks of psychology. There has been considerable debate over the nature of paradigms which has passed by most psychologists, especially the more empirically - oriented ones who view theory primarily as a means for enabling observa- tion. These empiricists view theory as a means of deriving methodology and, putting the cart before the horse, tend to loosely refer to methods as paradigms. When more abstract theoretical ideas are discussed at all, the utility of the empiricist's favorite methods in generating observational data is used as validation of the theory underlying those methods.
eBook - PDF- Albert R. Gilgen(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Academic Press(Publisher)
Kuhn cites Newton's work on optics and Franklin's theory of electricity as paradigms which appeared in the natural sciences. When a true paradigm emerges, the various schools either fade away or become isolated, and the members of the scientific community concern themselves with investigations suggested by the paradigm. As this mop-up work takes place, sophisticated hardware is developed, more precise hypotheses and observations become possible, and there is little squabbling over fundamentals or what constitutes the proper concern of the discipline. A paradigm is embraced until significant discrepancies between expectancies and observa-tions appear; a revolution or radical reorientation, however, does not take place until another achievement provides a new focus for the science. Keeping Kuhn's analytical scheme in mind, does the systematic study of behavior change, particularly the research on conditioning, constitute a true paradigm for all scientific psychology? Many contemporary psycho-logists evidently think so because psychology is today frequently defined as the scientific study of behavior. I believe, however, that psychology is still in the pre-paradigmatic stage, not only because the observation of behavior change is, in my opinion, a data source and not an end in itself (see also the chapters by Pribram and Rock), but also because psychologists still INTRODUCTION 5 spend considerable time arguing over such fundamental questions as: What is psychology? What problems can psychologists legitimately investigate? What constitutes significant research? A truly paradigmatic psychology, it seems to me, will be based on more than the study of behavior; many of the most important processes involved in organism-environment interactions (perceiving, thinking, emoting, feeling, sensing, etc.) are not highly correlated with gross behavioral changes and therefore require other data sources (biochemical, physiological, intro-spective) for their investigation.
eBook - PDF- Rom Harré, Grant Gillett(Authors)
- 1994(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
On the side of method—how one does research—this psychology had its roots in behaviorism and its philosophical backing from the positivism of the 1920s. On the side of theory, it is cognitive, in the sense that it favors explanations in terms of mental states or processes. By drawing attention to some of its leading features, features that force us to reject this approach, we can build up our ideas of the new development by contrast. The Psychology of the Tradition: The Old Paradigm and Its First Transformation An Outline of Behaviorism and the Experimentalist Program Psychology is the science that attempts to explain behavior. There are three components to this definition and each has been signifi-cant in the development of psychology in its contemporary form. We will need to consider all three to understand the nature of the cognitive revolutions to be discussed in this book. In the attempt to make psychology a science, many theorists were misled into thinking that the only permissible phenomena fitted to be material to be studied in a psychological science would be publicly observ- A Clash of Paradigms 3 able entities. They mistakenly supposed that such were the phe-nomena of the paradigmatic physical sciences, inorganic chemistry and Newtonian mechanics. This led to the restriction of legitimate categories of phenomena to those that could be physically speci-fied such as stimulus conditions, states of the environment detect-able by the five senses (usually only vision was employed), and bodily movements as registered by some inhuman apparatus. What is more, both classes of phenomena were thought of as capable of being partitioned into independent or dependent variables.
eBook - PDF- Bernard C. Beins, Maureen A. McCarthy(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Scientists do not revise or abandon theories based on a single research study, but after enough evidence accumulates showing that a theory needs revision, then we work to determine what would constitute a better model of the behavior in question. When we examine hypotheses, we make them objective and testable. This means that we define our terms clearly so others know how exactly what we mean, and we specify how our research will assess whether a hypothesis is valid. One of the important elements of the scientific method is falsifiability. That is, we will test hypotheses to see if we can prove them wrong. Scientists do not believe that you can prove that an idea or theory is absolutely true. There may be a case that you have missed that would disprove the theory. But we can see when the theory breaks down, that is, when it is falsified. The best we can do is to try to falsify the theory through continual testing. Each time we try and fail to falsify the theory, we have greater confidence in it. For decades, people have used Freudian (psychodynamic) or behavioral theories to try to understand behavior. Both approaches have generated useful ideas about human behavior and have been accepted, at least in part, by the general public. You can see the impact of Freudian theory if you consider some of Freud’s terms that have gained currency in everyday language, like repression, penis envy, or Freudian slips. Some psychologists believe that many of Freud’s ideas are not scientifically valid. In fact, when Freudian ideas have been subjected to experimentation, they often have not stood up well. In a perspective as complicated as psychodynamic theory, though, there is still disagreement about the scientific status of ideas such as unconscious processing of information, and some psychologists maintain that Freudian ideas have received support from research (Westen, 1998).
eBook - ePub- Ian G. Barbour(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- HarperOne(Publisher)
‘Since the conservation law was formulated from empirical evidence, it can be falsified by it.’ 19 This, too, strikes me as an over-simplified account of the process of assessment in science as well as in religion. My complaint with all three of these analyses is that they treat ‘falsifiability’ and ‘unfalsifiability ’ as absolute and mutually exclusive categories. I have urged that even within science there are degrees of resistance to falsification, with paradigms and metaphysical assumptions most resistant but by no means totally invulnerable in the long run to cumulative empirical evidence. I would assign scientific paradigms a position near the middle of the ‘falsifiability’ spectrum – not at the extreme of ‘objectivity’ or ‘falsifiability’ as King-Farlow and Christensen as well as Siefferman assume. Religious paradigms I would assign towards the ‘subjective’ or ‘unfalsifiable’ end of the spectrum, because of the influence of interpretation on experience – but not at the extreme of ‘subjectivity’ (in the sense of immunity to evidence) which both Miller and Siefferman assume. Thus in comparing science and religion on a spectrum of degrees of resistence to falsification, I can point to both similarities and contrasts – whereas those who use only two boxes, labelled ‘falsifiable’ and ‘unfalsifiable’, have no option but to view science and religion either as similar (assigned to the same box, whichever it is), or contrasting (assigned to different boxes). I believe that recent work in the philosophy of science here casts significant light on the protracted debate about falsifiability in religion. 3. COMMITMENT TO PARADIGMS Let us now examine more closely some parallels between commitment to a religious paradigm and commitment to a scientific paradigm, understood as a research tradition transmitted by key historical examples or exemplars. First we may recall the importance of the community of scientists interacting over a period of time
eBook - PDFBusiness and Management Research
Paradigms and Practices
- Erica Hallebone, Jan Priest(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Red Globe Press(Publisher)
In the philosophy of the social sciences, Blaikie (2007: 1–29) carefully distin-guishes the conceptual possibility of six ontologies and six epistemologies. As this book concentrates on providing usable templates (roadmaps, or what we also refer to as mental models) for three popular paradigms for actually conducting research, the ontologies and epistemologies are typified and simplified. His ontologies for example take an overview of the various ways in which philosophers of the social sciences have handled the nature of reality, without necessarily differentiating the types of reality. Each paradigm’s template involves a series of contingent steps which must 48 RESEARCH PARADIGMS 1 be taken by the researcher in order to complete a rigorous study. While the names of the steps are the same in each paradigm, the characteristics of the steps change subtly across each paradigm, as do the relationships between the steps. These steps are highlighted in the templates on pages 52 to 67 of this chapter. In demonstrating the key differences between the three paradigms, it is important to be clear about types of questions that collectively demonstrate the differences between the paradigms. These are used to select, elaborate and confirm the choice and implementation of an appropriate paradigm. These types of questions and their interrelationships are depicted in Figure 4.1. PHILOSOPHIES OF SCIENCE 49 Figure 4.1 Steps in choosing and describing a paradigmatically consistent approach to research 1. Choose a paradigm Characterise the research problem's context, aims, challenge and likely outcome format. Based on these, tentatively choose a research paradigm. 2. Design the study Specify and align the steps for the inquiry consistent with the research's context, aims and challenges, and the requirements of the most appropriate paradigm.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
