Proof?

• A Favor-----Please by Doug W., 12/5/98
  • (...)
    
    • Comments on Vic's Comments on Doug's Comments by Jim Duffy, 3/22/99
      
      

Let us agree to cease talking about proofs before we become irretrievably silly. If it is not possible to prove a theory true in the physical sciences, where one can bring quantitative evidence to bear, it certainly is not possible to prove anything about psychological theories where only qualitative evidence can be appealed to.

In the physical sciences, the best one can say about any theory is that its inadequacies have not yet manifested themselves. What do I mean by that? Let me give you a few examples. Newtonian mechanics seemed to be a perfectly fine description of matter for hundreds of years, in the sense that it gave exact quantitative answers to as many decimal places as anyone was able to measure. It is now known that quantum mechanics is a more fundamental theory. Quantum mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of large-scale phenomena. In other words, it is known now that Newtonian mechanics is a special case of quantum mechanics. It's also relevant to recognize that quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics are nothing like each other; they represent vastly different concepts.

Newton's notion of the interaction between space and time as embodied in something called the Newtonian transformation also survived for centuries as a fundamental description that was confirmed with seemingly unlimited quantitative accuracy. This all changed, however, when Einstein came along and showed that special relativity was more correct and that special relativity reduced to the Newtonian description in the limit of slow speeds. Again, special relativity and the Newtonian description are vastly different.

The point is that this is not a history lesson. There is no reason to think that the physical theories of today are final, even though they too give good quantitative agreement with experiment. Special relativity causes problems for quantum mechanics in certain situations, and quantum theory and general relativity are at loggerheads. Scientific revolutions will be needed to solve the problems.

When one looks at the history of the quantitative sciences, one recognizes that there is no possibility of proof in any intellectual endeavor.

Talk of which psychological theory is correct also must stop. It is utterly inexcusable that feudal turf wars are still being fought. The siege mentality must end and the moats must all be filled in with common ground. There is only one human nature, so there is only one correct description. Which psychological theory is right? They all are. Which is wrong? They all are. What is needed is a grand ecumenical conference wherein the feuding factions can iron out their differences, which are actually very minor, for the most part, once one gets past each's provincial rhetoric.

If the medieval mentality were to end and a unified concept of human behavior were to emerge, would we then have something approximating a true theory of human nature? No, not if it was based solely on clinical evidence. Most patients are physiologically normal; they seek therapy merely because of misconceptions. What that means is that psychological theorizing must go beyond the clinical setting and attempt to serve as a basis for understanding history, religion, sociology, economics, political science, and the average person's day-to-day life. Only then will we be starting on the right road.

• Reason, Evidence, and Silliness by Jim Duffy, 3/23/99