Abstract
This article attempts to show that the metaphorical conception of human being as a machine takes a very specific epistemological standpoint. To make short the complex task of considering the implication of this paradigm for psychological and behavioral sciences, three important mismatches between the machine and the living human will be considered. Experience, agency and plasticity of human being are excluded in the scientific models and research activities when they are situated in the machine paradigm. For this reason, I claim that the machine paradigm does not offer the relevant frame for integrating results from various domains or approaches within human sciences, even if it can sometimes produce relevant scientific knowledge in certain domain at the scale of detailed investigation. Due to the importance of overcoming the fragmentation of scientific knowledge to solve the crisis in psychology, an “organic paradigm” should be elaborated which provides a new epistemological framework.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbey, E., & Valsiner, J. (2005). Emergence of Meanings Through Ambivalence. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 23.
Balez, R. (2008). Pygmalion au laboratoire. Contribution à la modélisation de l’influence implicite des attentes théoriques de l’expérimentateur sur les participants. Paris X Nanterre.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.
Brinkmann, S. (2009). Facts, values, and the naturalistic fallacy in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 27, 1–17.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). Frames for thinking: Ways of making meaning. In D.-R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Exploration in culture and cognition (pp. 93–105). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44.
Doria, N. G. (2009). No more than conjectures: Popper and the ethics of scientific entreprise. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(1), 116–125.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Flores-González, L. M. (2009). Phenomenological views on intersujectivity: towards a reinterpretation of consciousness. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(2), 187–193.
Gigerenzer, G., & Todd, P. M. (Eds.). (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goertzen, J. R. (2009). On the possibility of unification: the reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 829–852.
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: an inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harré, R. (Ed.). (1998). The singular self: an introduction to the psychology of personhood. London: Sage.
Harré, R., & Tissaw, M. A. (Eds.). (2005). Wittgenstein and psychology: a practical guide. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Jalley, E. (2006). Wallon et Piaget: Pour une critique de la psychologie contemporaine. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Jost, J. T. (1992). Social representations and the philosophy of science: belief in ontological realism as objectivation. Ongoing Production on Social Representations - Productions Vives sur les Représentations Sociales, 1(2–3), 116–124.
Kozma, R. (2008). Intentional systems: review of neurodynamics, modeling, and robotics implementation. Physics of Life Reviews, 5(1), 1–21.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (2000). When thing strike back: a possible contribution of science studies’to the social sciences. Britisch Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 107–123.
Marková, I. (2008). The epistemological significance of the theory of social representations. Journal for the Theory of social Behaviour, 38(4), 461–487.
McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer & D. Michie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 463–502). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Moscovici, S., & Hewstone, M. (1990). De la science au sens commun. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psychologie sociale (pp. 539–566). Paris: PUF.
Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (1979). La construction de l’intelligence dans l’interaction sociale. Berne: Peter Lang.
Piaget, J. (Ed.). (1980). Les formes élémentaires de la dialectique. Saint-Amand: Gallimard.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1963). Les opérations intellectuelles et leur développement. In P. Fraisse & J. Piaget (Eds.), Traité de psychologie expérimentale (Vol. 7, pp. 109–155). Paris: PUF.
Richelle, M., & Seron, X. (Eds.). (1980). L’explication en psychologie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Rosenblueth, A., Wiener, N., & Bigelow, J. (1943). Behavior, purpose and teleology. Philosophy of Science, 10(1), 18–24.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Russel, B. (1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13, 1–26.
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, 59(236), 433–460.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (1994). The Vygotksy reader. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L., & Luria, A. (1999). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallon, H. (1942). De l’acte à la pensée. Paris: Flammarion.
Yurevich, A. V. (2009). Cognitive frames in psychology: demarcations and ruptures. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(1), 89–103.
Zittoun, T., Duveen, G., Gillespie, A., Ivinson, G., & Psaltis, C. (2003). The use of symbolic resources in developmental transitions. Culture and Psychology, 9(4), 415–448.
Zittoun, T., Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Fragmentation or differentiation: questioning the crisis in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(2), 104–115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kohler, A. To Think Human out of the Machine Paradigm: Homo Ex Machina . Integr. psych. behav. 44, 39–57 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9113-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-010-9113-z