Epilogue: Watching for light: Spiritual psychology beyond materialism.

The special section and subsequent commentary on “Watching for Light: Spiritual Psychology Beyond Materialism” has initiated a discussion in our collective scholarly space predicated on the possibility that consciousness can exist independently from matter. Our contemporary colleagues in the physical sciences of physics, biology, and engineering have embraced this discussion to great theoretical benefit and enthusiasm within their fields. As theory and research in a spiritually oriented psychology builds outward from this discussion, we have ground to explore well beyond merely empirical proof of the premise; there exists an entirely new vista to emanate from this set of possibilities. The articles and commentaries over these two issues of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (PRS) propose a set of bearings for exploring new ground within research. Among the major themes to emerge are four sets of possibilities, which in this epilogue I offer as being among areas for creative exploration and innovative research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Against the grain: “Matter” and “spirit”.

Comments on the original article, "Implications of near-death experiences for a postmaterialist psychology," by B. Greyson (see record 2010-03251-005). Although I will only comment on the paper by Greyson (2010), my initial thoughts pertain to the whole section, which explicitly framed itself as a repudiation of materialism and a defense of spiritual psychology. I find neither of these positions palatable or fair to the nature of reality, which seems to scoff at our pedestrian attempts to tame it, whether by crass materialism or spiritualism. Both “spiritual materialism” and “crass materialism” are but different manifestations of the same maladies: The refusal to consider data that do not fit preconceptions (i.e., that one’s beliefs, whether spiritual or “scientistic” may be wrong or, at least, incomplete), methodological poverty (i.e., that one’s method of knowledge, whether experiential or experimental is the only or the best way to apprehend all of reality), and philosophical shallowness (e.g., the “secret” that we attract what happens to us, which is an insult to the countless victims of genocides and brutalities throughout history, or the pronouncements that consciousness has been “explained” when we have no idea even how electrochemical impulses become experiences). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is Clinical Psychology a Science?

Comments on an article by Carton Berenda titled Is Clinical Psychology a Science? (see record 1959-03759-001). Few people would contest the thesis proposed by Berenda; clinical psychology is indeed a science. But perhaps the question concerns the maturity of science, rather than the matter of whether an empirical discipline qualifies for a franchise in the domain of "Science." By maturity in science, I mean logical rigor in the expression of laws and theories--a matter of stringent but elegant quantifications, if you will. In this context, most of psychology and practically all of clinical psychology is a child. Failure to keep maturity distinctions in mind has led to some rather unsupportable analogies between psychology and physics. In the writer's opinion, it could only be unfortunate if we were to attempt to establish the kinship of our science to physics on the grounds proposed by Berenda: that, since science has given up the ontological quest, all science is permitted artistic license. One senses that the weakness of Berenda's analogy between physics and psychology lies in the fact that hardly anywhere in psychology do we find it possible to apply those principles by which reflective physicists have resolved what appear to be the logical difficulties of entertaining alternative theories. In answer to Berenda, then, the writer would propose that, until there is more logical order in our theories, more mathematical models, it may be that we are premature in trumpeting our emancipation from the ontological search. True, we are not looking for the real, but we are seeking representations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Advancing “the boldest model yet”: A commentary on psychology, religion, and spirituality.

Following O’Donahue’s (1989) consideration of the psychologist as metaphysician-scientist-practitioner, Jones (1994) proposed, “the boldest model yet” in which “religion could participate as an active partner with psychology as a science and as an applied discipline” (p. 184). Lisa Miller goes a step farther in her call for a spiritual psychology, which extends “a map of human experience beyond the material” and offers “the vast possibility of the science of psychology...to generate new methods beyond materialism” (see record 2010-09501-001). Each of the articles in this section illustrates what can be gained in reaching beyond materialism to meaning. Len Sperry (see record 2010-03251-006) advocates for a holistic, postmaterialist perspective to health, which de-emphasizes pathology and symptom reduction as the singular focus. Embedded in his thesis is the intricate connection between mind and body, yet he resists the unified model of scientific naturalism on the grounds that it “represents a biologization of spirituality.” The final article in this special section calls into question the fundamental assumptions of materialist psychology. Bruce Greyson’s study (see record 2010-03251-005) of near-death experiences challenges the assumption that the mind and the brain are identical and that psychological phenomena can be readily explained by existing physiological models. Will such challenges be embraced and will more fundamental questions be taken up, though it means that certain truth claims may need to be put aside? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology as the behaviorist views it.

(This partially reprinted article originally appeared in Psychological Review, 1913, Vol 20, 158–277.) Notes that psychology has failed to make good its claim as a natural science, due to a mistaken notion that introspection is the only direct method of ascertaining facts. Psychology, as the behaviorist views it, is a purely objective, experimental branch of natural science that needs introspection as much as do chemistry and physics. The behavior of humans and the behavior of animals must be considered on the same plane, as being equally essential to a general understanding of behavior. The elimination of states of consciousness as proper objects of investigation in themselves will remove the barrier from psychology that exists between it and the other sciences. Psychology as behavior will have to neglect but few of the really essential problems with which psychology as an introspective science concerns itself. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comments on Ferguson's "Forty years of useless research?" (Vol. 24, no. 2, April 1983).

The authors comment on Kinglsey Ferguson's "Forty Years of Useless Research?" (see record 2007-03833-001). Ferguson has raised an important issue for all readers to consider. He has taken a courageous stand and is attempting to stimulate us, as he does his undergraduate students, to explore nondefensively where we stand as a science and what we need to do to improve the quality of our work. It it is only through the respectful marriage of the art and science of psychology that our field will prosper. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ideology of logic in contemporary psychology.

Comments on the article "Psychology and Phenomenology: A Clarification" by H. H. Kendler (see record 2005-05480-003). In this article, Kendler sought to resolve the methodological issue that divides much of contemporary psychology--namely, the difference between natural science and human science in their respective views of psychological life. Whereas Kendler provided an evocative historical account of conflicts over how psychology has interpreted consciousness, the force of his analysis depends on the extent to which the proverbial "is/ought" distinction, invoked any time the question of "science" is at stake, can have any meaningful purchase in the face of a radical phenomenology like that of Martin Heidegger. Regrettably, Kendler's position in the end eclipses any intention to clarify our understanding of the relationship between "natural" and "human" science. The consequence of his article will not likely resolve the controversy he put before us, but if it does nothing more than provoke further discussion, Kendler will have provided our profession with an opportunity to understand more fully this business we call psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Paul Meehl as methodologist-philosopher of science: The formulation of metascience.

Paul Meehl's contributions to methodology and the philosophy of science extend well beyond his widely known writings in such areas as construct validity and statistical significance testing. I describe one of Meehl's less well-known, but potentially most important, methodological undertakings: his work on metascience, or the science of science. Metascience could ultimately revolutionize our conceptualizations and understanding of science and provide considerable help to practicing scientists and scientific endeavors, including efforts to advance the development and appraisal of theories in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology and the ethics of social policy.

Psychology's ability to resolve or moderate social conflicts stemming from competing moral positions depends on whether psychology is conceptualized as a mental or behavioral science. Knowledge claims from the direct observation of consciousness cannot yield consensual agreement about valid ethical principles or correct social policies. As a behavioral science, psychology is unable to validate moral principles because of the logical impossibility of inferring ethical imperatives from empirical data. Behavioral evidence can nevertheless assist society in choosing among competing social policies by revealing their empirical consequences. To do this successfully, psychology must use natural science methodology with the aim of seeking empirical and theoretical truth, not political goals or ethical ideals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Preface.

Introduces the companion special issues of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research and Rehabilitation Psychology, which are devoted to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation. Unlike other legislation prohibiting discrimination against a class of individuals, the range of disabilities covered by the ADA goes far beyond the commonly recognized categories of mobility, vision, and hearing impairments to include a multitude of other medical, developmental, and mental conditions. In this post-ADA era, psychologists now have a legal as well as an ethical duty to provide complete access for persons with disabilities to our profession, our services, our places of work, and our communities. While the ADA is a milestone, it is also a starting point. There is a great need for the science of psychology to take the initiative and focus more research effort in the disability field. Our goal should be to look beyond the ADA for ways in which we can make our society more inclusive for persons with disabilities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

History of psychology.

If we accept philosophy as the search for knowledge about ourselves and the world around us by reasoning and we accept psychology as the use of science in the search for understanding the mind and behavior, we can get along without philosophy in our history courses very well. We can begin the history of psychology with the emergence of the life sciences in the early 1800s with passing kudos to the general emergence of science via Gallileo, Newton and Bacon. We can sanitize Fechner, Wundt, James and Dewey; ennoble Pavlov, Watson and Skinner; plunge into learning and psychobiology (while sanctifying logical positivism); and end amidst computers and cognition. And remain unscathed and untouched by human (and humane) reasoning and philosophy. Overall, from the perspective of a historian type, I am less and less certain about the present or the future without the sifting wisdom of history. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A whisper of salvation: American psychologists and religion in the popular press.

The advocates of the new psychology that emerged at the end of the 19th century were faced with a need to gain support from a public that was searching for a new basis for social and political order, yet was chary of any science identified with godless materialism. The first generation of American psychologists was faced with the dilemma of defining their approach as distinct from the old psychology while defusing public concern about the materialistic implications of their new science. Many of these new psychologists developed a rhetorical strategy of incorporating religious sentiment into their writing for the popular press. Their strategy emphasized the harmony of the new science with religious faith and stressed the moral qualities of psychological work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The future of psychology.

R. W. Sperry expresses his thanks for receiving the American Psychological Association citation for outstanding lifetime contribution to psychology. He suggests that psychology is turning the tables on physics and hard science and, with its cognitive revolution, is now leading the way in science to a more adequate and more valid paradigm for scientific and all causal explanation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Neoscholastic Psychology Revisited.

Beginning around 1879, a Neoscholastic psychology developed, an experimental psychology with a soul. Opposed to materialism, it sought to renew Scholastic philosophy by incorporating the findings of the natural sciences. Neoscholastic psychology is an important chapter in the history of the relationships between science and religion in the 20th century. Neoscholastic psychology was both experimental and philosophical. This article presents the main accomplishments of North American Neoscholastic psychology in academic and applied areas. Neoscholastic psychologists championed scientific psychology while insisting on a better conception of human nature. Philosophical critiques led to a decline of Neoscholasticism; after the 1960s it was no longer official Catholic philosophy. Neoscholasticism gave psychologists concerned with philosophical questions impetus to turn to phenomenology, existentialism, and humanistic psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ensuring the future of professional psychology.

The future of professional psychology will be ensured if the profession collectively addresses several key issues critical to its success. This address focuses on ways to guarantee patients' rights, expand our visions for professional psychology, remain a doctoral profession, and make science an ally of practice. It urges us to use the resources of APA and our state and provincial psychological associations to accomplish the goal. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Critique des fondements épistémologiques des approches spirituelles en psychologie.

The aim of the present article is to expose a rather disconcerting aspect of psychology which is, the coexistence within it of both a scientific and a spiritual discourse. First, a clear definition of spirituality is presented. This will enable us to explain how problematic this concept is for science generally and for psychology in particular. Secondly, we will present three psychological approaches that fit our previous definition of spirituality: integrationism, logotherapy and the transpersonal approach. Starting from our previous discussion and critic of spirituality, we will see how, each in their own may, these three approaches fall in contradiction with the established facts and method of modern science. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Citation for outstanding lifetime contribution: August 13, 1994.

Presents the American Psychological Association citation for outstanding lifetime contribution to psychology to E. R. Hilgard. A scientist, philosopher, educator, historian, and humanitarian, Hilgard has been one of psychology's foremost generalists as well as a brilliant contributor in the areas of learning and states of consciousness. One of Hilgard's major contributions to the American Psychological Association was in revising the bylaws and encouraging the divisions to not only represent the various particular interests of psychology, but also to serve as a means for psychologists to meet and share the science and the profession. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological instruments at the turn of the century.

Psychology at the turn of the last century was primarily a natural science in its approach. Its goals paralleled those of experimental physiology and physics that had been so successful earlier in the 19th century. The use of scientific instruments to produce stimuli and record responses in psychological experiments became the hallmark for this new psychology of the laboratory. The origins, role, and significance of some of these instruments are discussed as well as the role of instrument makers and their patrons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)