Scientific method

A definition of the scientific method by Roberto Assagioli:

“This is an appropriate point, I think, at which to clarify what the “scientific method” truly consists of, in view of the confusion and misunderstanding about it that now prevails. It was applied first and especially in the field of the natural sciences, thus becoming identified with the special techniques evolved to serve them. These techniques are by their very nature quantitative, in that they involve measurements, statistics, mathematical relationships, etc., and are largely experimental; based, that is, on experiments conducted in the laboratory and repeatable at will, which eliminate (or are believed to be able to eliminate) every subjective factor introduced by the experimenter.

Thus, when psychology severed its links with philosophy and, establishing its independence from it, assumed autonomy as a science, its proponents believed it possible, indeed their duty, to appropriate the same techniques as those hitherto employed by the natural sciences, and only those. They thereby excluded from their field of investigation all that is qualitative and subjective and only admitted it to their province provided it could be associated with phenomena observed externally and translated into quantitative terms. But, in doing this, they eliminated what is specifically human, what is in fact the true concern of psychology. There is no justification whatever for this exclusion. It is undeniable that all subjectively lived psychological phenomena are facts, even if not susceptible to direct weighing and measuring procedures, and as such can be studied scientifically. The pragmatic principle must be accepted that everything has its reality which produces an effect that modifies a preexistent state.

Goethe had already anticipated this pragmatic conception in stating with conciseness and clarity:

“Wirklichkeit was wirkt” (That is real which produces an effect and is operative.) Well, an emotion, a feeling, a complex, an ideal, an intuition, these are real facts, since they modify reality. Ideals, good or bad as the case may be, have ever prompted individuals and communities to action. But who has measured or weighed an ideal?

Speaking generally it may be said that the scientific method essentially consists in sound reasoning. It means, after due observation and description of facts and experiences, to think correctly about their meaning, nature, effects, and possible utilization. The true scientific mind is one that functions accurately, avoids sophisms, rationalizations and other causes of error in the operation of the mental machine—such as the “personal equation” of the observer, rigid adherence to a particular school of thought, arbitrary generalizations—in short, all the “idols” mentioned by Bacon, of which he distinguished four classes: the Idola Tribus (of the tribe), the prejudices common to mankind (or to a culture, as we should now say); Idola Specus (of the cave), the prejudices of specialization; Idola Fori (of the marketplace), the prejudices that come from association with other people;2 and Idola Teatri, the prejudices due to a received philosophical or religious doctrine.3

Locke considers the problem from another angle and also finds four sources of error:

1. Lack of proofs;
2. Lack of the capacity to make use of proofs;
3. Lack of the will to use proofs;
4. Erroneous evaluation of the potentialities of proofs.

In its turn, Locke subdivides this fourth class into four categories:

1. Assumption of doubtful propositions as principles;
2. Accepted hypotheses;
3. Dominant passions;
4. Principle of authority.4

From a synthetic point of view, we may say that the method in a precise sense, must be distinguished from the techniques that can be used. In reality there is only one scientific method, while the techniques are many and diverse, and each must be chosen or created in accordance with the field or fields in which it is to be applied or with the intended purposes.

From a synthetic point of view, we may say that the method in a precise sense, must be distinguished from the techniques that can be used. In reality there is only one scientific method, while the techniques are many and diverse, and each must be chosen or created in accordance with the field or fields in which it is to be applied or with the intended purposes.

The difference between the purely objective, quantitative conception and that which takes into account subjective psychological data can be illustrated by a simple example. Let us imagine that we have before us a glass half-full of water. From the objective point of view it is a matter of indifference whether we say it is half-full or half-empty.

From the psychological standpoint, on the other hand, the two expressions, half-full and half-empty, have very different meanings. They are indications of two opposite reactions which have important consequences. A person who says, “the glass is half-empty,” reveals a sense of grievance, a pessimistic and critical attitude. He starts with the presupposition that the glass ought to be quite full and is complaining that it is half-empty. One who instead says, “this glass is half-full,” shows a sense of appreciation, of gratitude for the water which he can drink.

The former manner of reacting if habitual and accentuated, is conducive to neuro-psychic disturbances, to conflicts with other people, to unhappiness. The latter, on the contrary, leads to satisfaction and a feeling of gratitude towards others which evokes their goodwill. Thus, while from the quantitative angle there is no difference, the effects are quite opposite viewed from the psychological standpoint. Now, these opposite effects are scientific facts, just as real as the fifty percent of liquid in the glass. So the quantitative datum has no significance in itself other than demonstrating the existence of the phenomenon. But its modalities, its relationships with the observer, and its consequences are objects of scientific study, not in opposition, but complementary to the objective observation.

The same fact is humorously expressed in the reply to the question, “What is the difference between a paranoiac and a neurotic?” Answer: “The paranoiac believes that two and two make seven and is quite happy about it; the neurotic knows that two and two make four but he does not like it.” This means that, while the neurotic mentally recognizes the objective fact, his emotional reaction is negative. There is, furthermore, another aspect of the scientific attitude which some prominent scientists have spontaneously or deliberately utilized. It is the recognition and use in scientific research of certain psychological functions, such as imagination, intuition, and creativity. Many scientists have testified to this, among those having done so in precise terms was the mathematician, Henri Poincaré. (The New Dimensions of Psychology: The Third, Fourth and Fifth Forces, By Roberto Assagioli, M.D.)

PSYCHOLOGY AND SCIENCE

From the Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, Newsletter, sep. 1969

As a contribution to the perennial discussion as to whether or not psychology is a science we quote a recent statement by Roberto Assagioli, M.D.:

First let us try to realize WHAT Science is. It may seem obvious, but that is not so. Generally, what is considered scientific, or a proper thing for scientific investigation, is the outer world – the world of nature – and everything that can be weighed and measured. That is not only the popular conception of science, but the belief of many scientists. But it is a narrow, one-sided conception. The fundamental mistake or misunderstanding is that the fields of research are considered scientific or not scientific; while it is not the field of research but the method of research which can be scientific or non-scientific.

This is a fundamental distinction. Everything can be the object of science, and the world of qualities and meaning and what is usually called the spiritual world is as legitimate a field of scientific investigation as that of the outer garment — the manifestation of nature.

“To give a clear example, sex is currently considered ‘scientific’ and love is not! Academic psychologists have much to say about sex, and there are many scientific books on sex, but practically-none on love. In the index of the textbooks of psychologists you don’t find lave. Sex can be studied scientifically or not scientifically a for many of the books on it are very poor science – but love also can be studied scientifically.

“There are two instances of this. The famous Kinsey reports on sex have all the appearances of science: statistics, a wide field of interviews, and so on, but they are not really scientific. Why? Because Kinsey has isolated physical sex from its connections with the emotional and mental life. That is un-scientific.

It is an artificial separation of facts which are intimately united, and therefore, his reports do not give a true picture and the conclusions he draws are questionable.

“On the other hand, the late Professor Sorokin, Professor of Sociology and a true scientist, wrote an admirable book, The Ways and Power of Love, which is very good science because in it he made an objective analysis of love, of the various kinds of love, of the various potentialities of love. He also gave some statistics and an historical survey with true scientific method. This is a scientific book on Love, but it is practically unknown. ‘Scientific’ is what is studied with scientific method, and the scientific method is not limited to weighing and measuring, but it means first of all clear thinking and. sound reasoning on well established facts. It is using the mind objectively, without prejudice, bias or emotional distortions. Francis Bacon clarified some of the chief points of the scientific method a and others have done so since, notably through the science of semantics.”