Talk:Experimental psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
What does it take to be a Experimetnal Psychologist?
- Not knowing the specifics of your question, I'll assume you're asking about educational requirements (and being an American, I can only answer based on my experience in the US). Most experimental psychologists that I know have at least a bachelor's degree, usually in psychology, biological psychology, neuroscience, or cognitive science, all of which share quite a bit of overlap in terms of university course requirements. Being a rich field, the course of study (at least at UCLA) typically includes a general introduction to neuroanatomy, pharmacology, and behaviorism, psychophysics (and signal detection theory), learning & memory, human development, artificial intelligence, Research Design & Statistics, and others.
- To work professionally, many also obtain an advanced degree in psychology, such as a master's degree or a PhD, which often means that they've produced a research-based thesis, and have a rich understanding of current literature (such as the APA's Journal of Experimental Psychology series) and modern experimental techniques and practices.
In the article it mentioned Wundt as the founder of the school of structuralism...however, I thought it was his student Titchener who developed the school? Clarification would be great...
[edit] Controversial statements about the foundation of experimental psychology
Earlier, I removed the statement that experimental psychology began with Ibn al-Haytham, and that he is regarded as the father of the discipline, because there are a number of problems with such a strong claim:
The claim that al-Haytham 'is regarded as the father of experimental psychology' is a claim of consensus. As Wikipedia guidelines state: Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.
In contradiction to the claims regarding Ibn al-Haytham, the referenced paper actually describes the the current consensus of the importance of Fechner to experimental psychology:
...historians of psychology agree that Fechner with his publication in 1860 of Elements of Psychophysics marks the starting point of experimental psychology. He is seen as the founder of psychophysics and experimental psychology. He was the first scientist to give psychology a mathematical foundation, and he took the first steps toward a quantitative psychology.
It is an exceptional claim for the discipline, and yet it is not widely known. Wikipedia guidelines say that: Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific topics. Only one reference is provided, and the journal in which it is published does not appear to be peer-reviewed, but only 'refereed'. Thus, the claim has not been subjected to rigorous examination by the wider scientific community.
In addition, the author of the paper admits that:
My aim is simply to present The Book of Optics as I understand it, therein justifying my belief that it laid the foundation of psychophysics and experimental psychology.
The justification of belief does not constitute academic authority, and as such the paper should not be cited as a reliable source.
I have noticed that similarly contentious statements have been made by the same author (Jagged 85) on other psychology pages, and considering their potential significance, these claims need to be addressed.
I fully endorse Wikipedia's intention to widen the Western-centric nature of its English language content. Similarly, I absolutely encourage the publication of new knowledge. In no way am I attempting to silence, denounce or discourage the work of Muslim scholars in this century or any other. However, any such contentious claims made on this forum must be treated in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, and it is in this spirit that I am raising these objections to the recent edits of psychology articles.
Since Jagged 85 has re-installed the contentious claim that I removed, and because I have no wish to engage in an ongoing editing battle, I have refrained from further editing of the article. (In my opinion, minor changes of phrasing would avoid the contentiousness of the claims, e.g. 'one author has suggested that..') Instead, I have posted these comments here and would welcome opinion and advice from any more experienced contributors.
Birkinstein 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I restored it was because you initially assumed it was original research, which was never the case (the reference was just not visible). Now that your wider concerns have become clearer to me, I have re-worded the paragraph more neutrally and elaborated on what both men contributed to the field. Feel free to leave any comments on my re-wording of the paragraph. Jagged 85 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, if you don't mind me asking, what exactly is the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and refereed journal? I've always assumed they were pretty much the same (if I'm not mistaken). Jagged 85 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
