The Cult of Empiricism in Psychology, and Beyond

At some stage in it\u27s development, any field of intellectual discussion or scientific speculation may reach a point at which it begins to generate large numbers of empirical questions, that is, questions whose answers must refer to carefully documented observations, or even to controlled experiments. In physics, this happened most strikingly in the course of the seventeenth century; in biology, the comparable stage was not reached until around 1770, rising to its peak in the course of the nineteenth century (Toulmin, 1972; Toulmin & Goodfield, 1962); whereas in psychology, it has become customary-though a trifle arbitrary-to argue that this happened just one hundred years ago, with the establishment of Wilhelm Wundt\u27s pioneer psychological laboratory in Leipzig in 1879

Assumption without representation: the unacknowledged abstraction from communities and social goods

We have not clearly acknowledged the abstraction from unpriceable “social goods” (derived from communities) which, different from private and public goods, simply disappear if it is attempted to market them. Separability from markets and economics has not been argued, much less established. Acknowledging communities would reinforce rather than undermine them, and thus facilitate the production of social goods. But it would also help economics by facilitating our understanding of – and response to – financial crises as well as environmental destruction and many social problems, and by reducing the alienation from economics often felt by students and the public

Environmentalism, pre-environmentalism, and public policy

In the last decade, thousands of new grassroots groups have formed to oppose environmental pollution on the basis that it endangers their health. These groups have revitalized the environmental movement and enlarged its membership well beyond the middle class. Scientists, however, have been unable to corroborate these groups' claims that exposure to pollutants has caused their diseases. For policy analysts this situation appears to pose a choice between democracy and science. It needn't. Instead of evaluating the grassroots groups from the perspective of science, it is possible to evaluate science from the perspective of environmentalism. This paper argues that environmental epidemiology reflects ‘pre-environmentalist’ assumptions about nature and that new ideas about nature advanced by the environmental movement could change the way scientists collect and interpret data.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45449/1/11077_2005_Article_BF01006494.pd