ResearchGate
< Back

November 2018

Brad Jesness has added an update

Nov 8,2018

A related challenge (related to the last Update)

How often do psychologists actually seek direct and empirical (and observable and testable (verifiable or falsifiable )) evidence? _VS._ how much are they trying MORE INDIRECTLY to support or elaborate their models? I, myself, am astonished at how infrequently good questions are asked (and how infrequently good hypotheses are DISCOVERED in need of posing -- though the reason why is apparent: experimentation and 'laboratory' setting, etc. BIASES (PLUS unfounded, likely false 'assumptions'). [ (In contrast to what is actually progressive, the indirect-'supports'-tendency has not been shown as necessary regarding important basic core developments and to believe that it is -- and, moreover, effectively BELIEVING THAT IS ALL WE CAN HAVE -- is being non-empirically-oriented, and in an unjustified way.] If core base answers are not sought, they will not be discovered. AND, nothing will be truly or well-understood. When it comes to empiricism, be willing to feel like you are taking a chance and betting on MORE truly directly observable empirical phenomenon (behavior patterns) discoverable and at the base of ALL your concepts, at the base of all human cognitive phenomenon (most definitely including the abstract). If we never look, we will never find. And, if we are not seeking any directly observable empirical evidence, there will never be clarity and there will never be inter-observer reliability, which are central and essential to science (and to communication, generally); and, there will never be any good or real progress. Memory, actually the Memories (systems) (addressed in the last Update), are always part of all that is most significant ('behind' -- and, actually also in a sense 'AHEAD of' -- &quot;who we are&quot;).