...
首页> 外文期刊>Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science >Beyond Objectivity and Subjectivity: The Intersubjective Foundations of Psychological Science
【24h】

Beyond Objectivity and Subjectivity: The Intersubjective Foundations of Psychological Science

机译:超越客观性和主观性:心理学的主体间基础

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

The question of whether psychology can properly be regarded as a science has long been debated (Smedslund in Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50, 185-195, 2016). Science is typically understood as a method for producing reliable knowledge by testing falsifiable claims against objective evidence. Psychological phenomena, however, are traditionally taken to be "subjective" and hidden from view. To the extent that science relies upon objective observation, is a scientific psychology possible? In this paper, I argue that scientific psychology does not much fail to meet the requirements of objectivity as much as the concept of objectivity fails as a methodological principle for psychological science. The traditional notion of objectivity relies upon the distinction between a public, observable exterior and a private, subjective interior. There are good reasons, however, to reject this dichotomy. Scholarship suggests that psychological knowledge arises neither from the "inside out" (subjectively) nor from the outside-in (objectively), but instead intersubjective processes that occur between people. If this is so, then objectivist methodology may do more to obscure than illuminate our understanding of psychological functioning. From this view, we face a dilemma: Do we, in the name of science, cling to an objective epistemology that cuts us off from the richness of psychological activity? Or do we seek to develop a rigorous intersubjective psychology that exploits the processes through which we gain psychological knowledge in the first place? If such a psychology can produce systematic, reliable and useful knowledge, then the question of whether its practices are "scientific" in the traditional sense would become irrelevant.
机译:长期以来,人们一直在争论是否可以将心理学适当地视为一门科学(《综合心理与行为科学》(Smedslund),50,185-195,2016)。科学通常被理解为通过根据客观证据测试可证伪的主张来产生可靠知识的方法。然而,心理现象传统上被认为是“主观的”并且是看不见的。在科学依赖于客观观察的程度上,科学心理学是否可能?在本文中,我认为科学心理学并不能完全满足客观性的要求,就像客观性概念作为心理学的一种方法论原则失败一样。传统的客观性概念依赖于公共的,可观察的外观和私人的,主观的室内之间的区别。但是,有充分的理由拒绝这种二分法。奖学金表明,心理知识不是源于“由内而外”(主观),也不源于“由内而外”(客观),而是源于人与人之间的主体间过程。如果是这样的话,那么客观主义者的方法可能比照亮我们对心理功能的理解要模糊得多。从这种观点来看,我们面临一个难题:我们是否以科学的名义坚持客观的认识论,使我们脱离了心理活动的丰富性?还是我们寻求发展一种严格的主体间心理学,以利用我们首先获得心理知识的过程?如果这样的心理学能够产生系统的,可靠的和有用的知识,那么其实践是否在传统意义上是“科学的”问题就将变得无关紧要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号