Suspicious Textbook

[dgmort19]

So I was reading through my textbook this morning, it's called "Research Methods in Psychology." Now, I was quite disturbed to come across a paragraph that said, essentially, this:

"Scientists make the assumption that the universe is chock-full of orderly cause-and-effect principles. In this, they make a leap of faith similar to that of a Rabbi who places his faith in the Torah."

Okay, is it just me? Or is this @#$%ing bogus? The kind of scientific determinism in question requires only as much faith as it does to assume that, by leaving my fridge open, I will run up a larger electricity bill.

It's one thing to say "I have only ever seen the universe to be full of order. It has demonstrated its orderly properties again and again. Therefore, I can expect that future phenomena observed will run on the same type of order. Thus, rational explanations should be pursued."

It is QUITE another to say, "God is real. I believe this without conclusive evidence."

[Ultima22689]

It sounds like the author was one of the many people who dislike scientists, thinking they have large egos and how they dare say X thing about the universe and claim it's right because their work says it is. This is of course preposterous, but alot of people underestimate what science/mathematics is capable of. It's annoying but there will always be comments like that.  If this was a statement in person by someone, this would usually be the part where you explain the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

[Recusant]

OK, when I hear something like the quote from your textbook, I do a little research. Let's look at the authors of Research Methods in Psychology:

1) John J. Shaughnessy, Hope College  

Education

B.S. Loyola University of Chicago, 1969
M.S. in Experimental Psychology from Northwestern University, 1971
Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from Northwestern University, 1972

Already this tells us a lot.
 

From Hope College Overview:

Hope College is a distinguished and distinctive four-year, liberal arts, undergraduate college, affiliated with the Reformed Church in America. Its great religious heritage is expressed through a dynamic Christian community of students and teachers vitally concerned with a relevant faith that changes lives and transforms society.

As for Loyola University, the name itself says something, but I'll let them speak for themselves directly:

From Loyola University Key Facts:

 Loyola University Chicago, a private university founded in 1870 as St. Ignatius College, is the nation’s largest Jesuit, Catholic University and the only one located in Chicago.

Starting to see a pattern here?

Let's look at the other authors:

2) Eugene Zechmeister, Loyola University of Chicago
3) Jeanne Zechmeister, Loyola University of Chicago

I think we've found some pretty clear evidence of where these people are likely to be coming from, as far as their outlook and orientation. The "science is about faith too!" refrain is a canard trotted out by theists on a regular basis, and psychology (at least to hear some of those who work in "hard science" disciplines tell it) barely qualifies as science in the first place.  No doubt the authors are well qualified in their field, and the information in their textbook is good.  Don't blame them too much for letting their prejudice bleed through into their writing; I'm sure it happens when non-theistic professors write textbooks in the "soft sciences" as well. I wouldn't let it bother me to the extent that I dismissed all that they're trying to impart in their textbook.

[dgmort19]

Well I feel rather foolish now. Not knowing that someone would take enough interest to actually research this book, I listed the title from my memory, and I boffed it. The real title, looking at the book again, is "Conducting Research in Psychology: Measuring the Weight of Smoke." Fortunately, the meaning of the paragraph I summarized remains intact. Sorry, Recusant. :S

The real book is written by these fellows:  

http://blanton.socialpsychology.org/#publications

http://pelham.socialpsychology.org/

I don't have much time at the moment, so I can't say whether they come from a religious background of any kind. You're right, though. I had no intention of dismissing anything else they wrote on the basis of the faith quote. However, at the risk of drastically altering the discourse here, could you explain why you consider psychology to "barely qualify" as a science? I, myself, am going into the field, and have considered it to be organized by every scientific process that organizes the (and I dislike this colloquialism) "hard sciences."

I do realize that physicists deal with constant principles, biologists with constant cellular activity, etc., and that, of course, the study of psychology rests on something fundamentally amorphous in many ways, but the approach is highly scientific, is it not? It utilizes the scientific method to the fullest extent when conducting research. I might let "soft science" go, but I don't think "barely a science" is entirely fair.

Of course, I assume I'm biased in this matter...

[Recusant]

No problem, I enjoy this sort of stuff, even if I'm following what turns out to be a false trail.  

So the lead author is one Dr. Brett Pelham.  Guess what?  Pelham earned his BS at Berry College:

From Berry College Mission and Purpose:

Berry College is a comprehensive liberal-arts college with Christian values. The college furthers our students’ intellectual, moral and spiritual growth; proffers lessons that are gained from worthwhile work done well; and challenges them to devote their learning to community and civic betterment. Berry emphasizes an educational program committed to high academic standards, values based on Christian principles, practical work experience and community service in a distinctive environment of natural beauty.

...

An essential part of a sound education is the opportunity to explore religious faith and to relate faith with learning responsibly and intelligently, and we dedicate ourselves to providing these opportunities. The college is dedi­­cated to the inter­denomi­national Christian values on which it was founded and welcomes individuals of diverse backgrounds into the campus community.

Again, I think we can see where the theistic tinge in your quote comes from.  The other author, Dr. Hart Blanton, attended secular learning institutions so it's reasonable to doubt that he's directly responsible for the quote, beyond accepting it as an accurate statement.

As for the question of psychology's status as a science, I'm the one who's feeling a bit foolish at the moment.  I was quoting prejudiced and disparaging statements I've read at various times from those who work in the "hard sciences," and I'm certainly not qualified to make such a statement myself. In fact, I think that psychology is probably one of the most interesting and exciting fields to work in for a scientist, since there are so many areas within it that are open to new research and innovation. Please accept my apology for glibly parroting what is really a slur on the work of sincere seekers after scientific knowledge of the human psyche.

[dgmort19]

Hey, no problem at all. Apologies on my end if I came off as defensive.

That's interesting about the first author. I'll be keeping my eye open as I read on. It's honestly a really interesting book so far. Embarrassingly enough, I have fallen prey, in the past, to several of the unscientific leaps which they note people to frequently make. Anyway, good stuff.

[Tank]

Good to see somebody using this forum to get advice on this sort of thing. Just accepting something because it's in a book is a quite a dangerous thing to do.

[Ultima22689]

I think we all learned that the hard way, if you know what I mean.  

[Twentythree]

The scientist and the rabbi may be taking leaps of faith. But at least the scientist will admit and concede when a more likely and plausible leap is proposed. The Rabbi, on the other hand, will simply shift words, meanings and time lines until his leap seems like the only possible leap one could ever make, in all the the history of all of the cosmos ever.