Advertisement

Psychology of Science as a Contribution to Metascience

  • P. J. van Strien
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Research in Psychology book series (PSYCHOLOGY)

Summary

Psychologists have developed theories on creativity, which offer interesting insights into the personal conditions of scientific work, but have, possibly due to fear of psychologism, hardly ventured psychological explanations of the content of scientific ideas. In this article science is conceived as the production and reception of solutions to theoretical and practical problems. The psychological reconstruction of the problem solving space of specific scientists consists of: a) a conceptual reconstruction of the questions which they have set out to answer and of the conceptual tools and notions which they have used in the problem solving process, and b) a relational reconstruction aimed at identifying the groups within science and society that have served as their “reference systems”, in the sense of sources of notions, critical evaluators, etc. This twofold recontextualization can contribute to metascience.

The reconstruction of the intellectual and social context of the metaphysical and psychological theories of the renowned Dutch pioneer of psychology Gerard Heymans is used as an illustration of such a meta-analysis.

Keywords

Relational Context Conceptual Tool Scientific Thinking Critical Evaluator 23rd Annual Meeting 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Readings in Extraversion-Introversion I, theoretical and methodological issues, I. London: Staples.Google Scholar
  2. Groot, A. D. de (1965). Thought and choice in chess. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
  3. Heymans, G. (1905). Einfuhrung in die metaphysik auf Grundlage der Erfahrung. Leipzig: Barth (2. Auflage, 1911, 3. Auflage, 1921).Google Scholar
  4. Heymans, G. (1909). De toekomstige eeuw van de psychologie. Groningen: Wolters.Google Scholar
  5. Heymans, G. (1914). Einfuhrung indie Ethik auf Grundlage des Erfahrung. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  6. Heymans, G. (1922). Selbstdarstellung. In R. Schmidt (Hrsg.), Die Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen III. Leipzig: Meiner.Google Scholar
  7. Heymans, G. (1927). Abschiedsvorlesung. In: G. Heymans, Gesammelte Kleinere Schrifte zur Philosophie und Psychologie, III (p. 621–630). Haag: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge: An essay in the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Le Cair (Ed.). (1966). The letters of William James and Théodore Flournor. London.Google Scholar
  14. Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  15. Popper, K. R. (1934). Logik der Forschung. Wien: Julius Springer; English translation: The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.Google Scholar
  16. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Selz, O. (1922). Zur psychologie des produktiven Denkens und des Irrtums. Bonn: Cohen.Google Scholar
  18. Simon, H. A. (1977). Models of discovery. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  19. van Strien, P. J. (1990). Recontextualization as a contribution of history to theoretical psychology. In W. J. Baker, M. E. Hyland, R. van Hezewijk & S. Terwee (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (Vol. II, pp. 305–315). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. van Strien, P. J. (1991a). Clinical versus statistical prediction: The conceptual and relational context of a long-standing debate in psychological practice. Paper presented at the 23rd annual meeting of the North American meeting of the Cheiron Society for the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Slippery Rock, Penn. June, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. van Strien, P. J. (1991b). Transforming psychology in the Netherlands II: Audiences, alliances, and the dynamics of change. History of the Human Sciences, 4, 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Strien, P. J. (in press). The historical practice of theory construction. In H. V. Rappard, P. J. van Strien and W. L. Mos (Eds.), History and theory. Annals of theoretical psychology (Volume IX). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  23. Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  24. Wolman, B. (1971). Does psychology need its own philosophy of science? American Psychologist, 26, 866–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. van Strien

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations