{"id":1889,"date":"2018-04-27T14:48:31","date_gmt":"2018-04-27T14:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=1889"},"modified":"2018-08-27T15:08:15","modified_gmt":"2018-08-27T15:08:15","slug":"object-science-versus-subject-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/aurelis\/object-science-versus-subject-science","title":{"rendered":"Object-Science Versus Subject-Science"},"content":{"rendered":"

Science about objects: physics, chemistry\u2026 Science about subjects: psychology, history\u2026 Both sciences are different and important.<\/h3>\n

Alpha, beta, positive etc. Let\u2019s skip that<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

and simply talk about object- versus subject-science. This is related to, respectively, closed-world versus open-world phenomena.<\/p>\n

Explanatory analogy: A cloud (\u2018open world\u2019 with lots of possible influences in all directions) doesn\u2019t fit as such in a box (\u2018closed world\u2019).<\/p>\n

Subjects much more readily belong to an open world and within subjects, probably most of all the deeper layers of mental \u2013 subconceptual \u2013 processing. [see: \u2018About \u2018Subconceptual\u2019<\/a>] Thus, it\u2019s important to AURELIS.<\/p>\n

One should not ask for the same kind of scientific proof in both, or one risks excommunicating the open-world \u2013 thus: all that is subjective \u2013 from science altogether. That cannot be the intention. The subjective is the most important. Even more: \u2018importance\u2019 IS<\/em> subjective.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a scientific error to try and squeeze an open world into a closed world<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

where it doesn\u2019t fit.<\/p>\n

Further upon our analogy: If indeed you squeeze a cloud in a box, it doesn\u2019t anymore behave like a cloud. It doesn\u2019t anymore look like a cloud. That\u2019s because it isn\u2019t a cloud anymore<\/em>. Thus, experiments in the box will not indiscriminately be applicable to the initial cloud.<\/p>\n

One of the consequences shows itself nowadays as the \u2018reproducibility crisis in psychological research\u2019. Namely: repeated studies give (very) different results, even those deemed to be of the highest rigor. The world of human psyche is more \u2018open\u2019 than many scientists would like.<\/p>\n

Subject-science appears to be (even much) more difficult than object-science.<\/p>\n

One result: what do we know about the influence of psychotherapeutic models upon well-being of clients? Much less than was thought only a decade ago. And that already wasn\u2019t that<\/em> much.<\/p>\n

Medicine also operates in a very open world inasmuch as psyche is involved.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here we have an additional difficulty in that many researchers\/practitioners still operate in a mostly Cartesian mindset (of strict mind\/body divide). Quite a few colleagues of mine \u2013 OK, let\u2019s be: honest: incomprehensibly many \u2013 try to see medicine as a much<\/em> more somatic (bodily) endeavor than it possibly can be.<\/p>\n

Anyway, as far as the psyche is involved, we have the same open-world difficulties as above.<\/p>\n

One result: although we know that psyche plays a huge role, we know little about how<\/em> and how much<\/em>. In many cases, the role of psyche is being downgraded towards a little as possible, or even less.<\/p>\n

Of course, this goes back to the cradle of modern Western medicine, its mirroring itself on the then revered clockwork-like physics, its huge emphasis on an urge to emancipate itself from the magical thinking of the preceding era, etc.<\/p>\n

Although the physics of that day was completely closed-world, the world of health and healing has never been such. Unfortunately, we now have a medicine that has been basically conceived for a box it doesn\u2019t well fit in as regards psycho-somatics.<\/p>\n

Problems, problems\u2026<\/p>\n

An open world is much less easy to \u2018falsify\u2019.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

[Falsification: where one tries to disprove a hypothesis. This is the basis of present-day \u2018hard\u2019 science.]<\/em><\/p>\n

This is precisely because of what \u2018open\u2019 means: open to all kinds of influences that can act as biases and therefore need huge experimental rigor to avoid them. Moreover, at any time a new influence can be discovered that diminishes or annihilates the importance of prior results.<\/p>\n

Still, science is of utmost importance.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What should not<\/em> be done, is claiming more than what the studies reveal.<\/p>\n

In psychotherapy, we should of course still perform experimental-scientific studies. In addition to this<\/em>, we should also put much more emphasis on sound theoretical thinking.<\/p>\n

Absolutely.<\/p>\n

With AURELIS, sound prospective studies are very much needed. So, if you want to cooperate, please let me know!<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Science about objects: physics, chemistry\u2026 Science about subjects: psychology, history\u2026 Both sciences are different and important. Alpha, beta, positive etc. Let\u2019s skip that and simply talk about object- versus subject-science. This is related to, respectively, closed-world versus open-world phenomena. Explanatory analogy: A cloud (\u2018open world\u2019 with lots of possible influences in all directions) doesn\u2019t fit Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1890,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[21,23],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/281.jpg?fit=960%2C568&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-ut","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1889"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1889"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1889\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1893,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1889\/revisions\/1893"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}