valikor
01/04/2012, 23h14
Pour ceux qui lisent l'anglais...
Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.fr/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html)
http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.fr/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html
le début :
"Psychology has a problem. We have no core theory to guide our research; no analogue to the theories of evolution or relativity. When particle physicists recently found that some neutrinos had apparently travelled faster than light (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos), it never actually occurred to them that this is what had happened. On the basis of the extraordinarily well supported theory of relativity, everyone went 'huh, that's weird - I wonder what we did wrong?', and proceeded to use that theory to generate hypotheses they could then test. It would take a lot of fast neutrinos to disprove relativity.
Psychology, though, when faced with an empirical result that violates the laws of physics (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2010/11/brief-note-daryl-bem-and-precognition.html), can't find any principled reason to reject the result and instead spends a lot of time squabbling about whether Bem's result might possibly be true because 'quantum' (http://wondermark.com/134/). Worse, when people do replicate the experiment and fail to support the original result, they can't get their 'null result' published (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/failing-to-replicate-bems-ability-to.html). It's a bit embarrassing, really."
Theory, and Why It's Time Psychology Got One (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.fr/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html)
http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.fr/2011/11/theory-and-why-its-time-psychology-got.html
le début :
"Psychology has a problem. We have no core theory to guide our research; no analogue to the theories of evolution or relativity. When particle physicists recently found that some neutrinos had apparently travelled faster than light (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos), it never actually occurred to them that this is what had happened. On the basis of the extraordinarily well supported theory of relativity, everyone went 'huh, that's weird - I wonder what we did wrong?', and proceeded to use that theory to generate hypotheses they could then test. It would take a lot of fast neutrinos to disprove relativity.
Psychology, though, when faced with an empirical result that violates the laws of physics (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2010/11/brief-note-daryl-bem-and-precognition.html), can't find any principled reason to reject the result and instead spends a lot of time squabbling about whether Bem's result might possibly be true because 'quantum' (http://wondermark.com/134/). Worse, when people do replicate the experiment and fail to support the original result, they can't get their 'null result' published (http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/2011/05/failing-to-replicate-bems-ability-to.html). It's a bit embarrassing, really."