It is obvious, then, that a history of the science of psychology must be written on the empirical level which the discipline has attained.
I think Griffith did an excellent job explaining and defending his position. Although others might come to different conclusions, I think it would be hard to deny the reasoning behind Griffith's thoughts.
thus scrutinized from the point of view of composition, of organization, and of function, and the facts are then moulded into a system
This is just as important as conducting the experiment itself. I think many people would consider the experiment to be the "fun" part. However, it is important to carefully interpret, review, and report the results of the study.
The laboratory has gone to work on the assumption that if it takes a small bit of human experience and repeats it over and over again under conditions that are carefully controlled and undertakes to reduce the experience to its smallest constituents, it has made a scientific description of the event.
This makes sense. I think we model many psychological experiments after this assumption. Although it would be impossible to truly recreate a "first" experience over and over again, we can replicate experiences by controlling experiments.
If mind is a form of energy, then our method and the statement of our problem are to a certain extent already established. If mind is the manifestation of the soul in the body, other methods and other problems are presupposed.
I would argue that the mind is neither a form of energy nor a manifestation of the soul. The more I thought about this, however, I realized how hard it is to define the mind. I think I would simply call it "the part of our body that thinks".
About what central theme should the account be written?
This is a difficult question to answer. The history of psychology is broad enough that a historian could go in many different directions.
a history of psychology should consist of an interpretative account of psychology taken as a science
I agree. I think our textbook uses this approach to discuss the history of psychology.
By virtue of his training and his knowledge, the psychologist is committed to the type of historical research we are urging
I'm not sure if I agree with Griffith here. Many psychologists may be historically inclined, but some might not have any interest in history. I don't think most psychologists are committed to historical research. I would agree, however, that the training most psychologists receive might lead them to prefer a scientific approach to historical research.
and their real value to the development of the discipine [sic] as a whole falls under the scrutiny of the historian who can place them in proper perspective.
I agree that value can be determined by proper perspective, but I would argue that it would take more than one historian to determine this. As our textbook points out, it takes multiple perspectives to create a historical truth.
The science needs the impetus to healthy growth that comes from a knowledge of the contributing factors to its existence.
I agree! Knowledge of a field, especially its history, can help people to do better work within that field.
We have buried ourselves so deeply in our laboratories and dissipated our energies so prematurely in the fields of psycho-technics that we are, to judge from the tenor of a large part of current periodical literature, losing contact with the real problem of psychology.
This is an interesting perspective. I think my question would be: are scientists losing contact with the real problem of psychology, or are the problems of psychology evolving as psychology continues to evolve?
The histories we have at the present time are but prologomena to a real history. They are concerned, for the most part, with the pre-psychological facts.
This is an interesting point. I think I agree with Griffith that many historians might be just as interested in a prolegomena to history as in the history itself.
Ebbinghaus's remark that psychology has had a long past and a short history emphasizes the fact that the long past is only a mould in which were cast the essential features of the science.
This is an interesting quote! I didn't realize it came from Ebbinghaus. It does seem true that psychology has evolved at a rapid rate in (relatively) recent history, when compared with earlier work in psychology. I think it's important to remember, however, that modern psychologists would not be able to learn at such a rapid rate without understanding the "basics" that were discovered by earlier scientists.
begin at some arbitrary date
This has always been interesting to me. I would love to ask a historian how they go about selecting an arbitrary date to begin their research.
As is the case in the first type of history, the account is considerably shortened if psychology is considered a scienc
Griffith did an excellent job illustrating this! I wonder how many people during Griffith's time would have firmly believed that psychology should be called a science.
In this history of psychology we do not find ourselves suddenly in the midst of an empirical movement but we find instead a number of tendencies leading for years toward the formulation of just the problems with which Bacon struggled.
This makes sense to me. Although movements may appear to start overnight, they usually start slowly and build momentum.
The whole account from this point of view is just a chronological sequence, the noting of the appearance of new movements and of the men responsible for them.
This is a good point. It's interesting to imagine understanding history with this point of view.
Such a history would take us back to the life and supposed work of Thales and then hasten us through the births and deaths and the date of the principal works of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, the Eleatics, Democritus, Plato and Aristotle, and finally, after many chapters, would give us a breathing spell among the church fathers.
My issue with this is that this information does not relate to psychology (as I understand it). This would be useful information for someone studying the history of philosophy. It seems to me that psychology students should mostly be studying how philosophy contributed to psychology, not the entire history of philosophy.
Suppose, for the moment, that history is a diary and that psychology is a general name for the study or observation of anything mental.
This seems, to me, to be too broad of a definition. I think it would be difficult to write a history of psychology without using more specific parameters.
specific scientific discipline
It makes sense to me to consider psychology to be a specific scientific discipline, much in the way we would call biology or chemistry a specific discipline.
psychology may be defined rigidly so as to include only a scientific description of mind, of mental activity, or of mental products
This does not seem to be such a rigid definition to me. I think we use psychology in combination with closely related subjects, such as sociology, and it can become easy to mix the two. I think "a scientific description of the mind, of mental activity, or of mental products" seems like a reasonable definition for psychology.
That is to say, psychology is a blanket term to cover almost anything
This is interesting to think about. I would have to disagree that psychology is a blanket term. Although psychology covers a wide number of issues, it does not cover everything. Some of the examples given here seem to align more with philosophy than psychology.
The historian can be "ultra-scientific"; that is to say, merely descriptive or static, and so put down his facts in orderly temporal succession; or he can enrich and enliven his account by reading into them the culmination of tendencies, the inception of movements, the mental-like stream of pregnant and forward-tending events.
I agree with Griffith here! This is very important because the way we record history will impact how future generations will interpret the past.
Static historians point out that interpretation and elaboration in history are as open to objections as is interpretation in any of the sciences.
This aligns much more closely with what our textbook says!
It is a curious fact that this second sort of history, genetic history, was largely supported by the biological sciences.
I find it fascinating to see how people from seemingly unrelated fields can end up working together.
is a chronological account of all that has occurred.
I think most historians would disagree with this definition. Our textbook stresses that history is our interpretation of what happened in the past, and that many past events may not have been recorded at all.
Histories grow and the past changes as it is seen in the light of new achievements
This is a really important statement and describes some of the issues with presentism. To presentists, major achievements from the past seem to pale in comparison to the achievements of today because they do not account for differing cultures and the limited resources of the past.
neither must it be a history for purposes of propaganda in favor of any particular school of psychologists.
I'm glad Griffith included this. It's incredibly important to not use history "for purposes of propaganda" and to stay as unbiased as possible. Some people might argue that emphasized eponyms are an unintentional type of propaganda in favor of certain psychologists.
the science is to assume the responsibilities of maturity
This is an interesting way to phrase Griffith's thought. I agree that scientists do have a responsibility to understand the history of their discipline (in this case, psychology). This phrase could be interpreted as saying that psychology could not have continued as a discipline without documenting its history.
while the second volume barely enters-into the days of "mental chronometry" and the "James-Lange theory."
It seems that this was a very important time for psychology. I'm surprised there wasn't more information available, given how many people were contributing to psychology during this time.
Of 254 pages which Dessoir devotes to an[4] outline of the history of psychology
I don't recall Dessoir's work being mentioned in our textbook, which is interesting, because it seems like he contributed to the history of psychology very early on.
Our historical researches are limited to the introductory pages of doctoral theses and other major pieces of research.
Would these have been the primary sources for psychological historians, such as E.G. Boring? This seems like so little information to go on!
We have, at the present time, no history of psychology
It's very odd to think about this. As our textbook explained, it's hard to understand the present without knowing the past. I think this statement reinforces how new psychology is when compared to many other scientific disciplines.
by telling us whence its methods and concepts have come and what these mean for its further development
These seem to be reasonable goals for someone writing about the history of psychology. I think our textbook certainly accomplished this!
a discipline whose facts already extend beyond the compass of encyclopedic volumes.
I think this shows how quickly psychology has grown as a discipline!
Psychology became, over night, a realm of laboratory adventure
It's interesting that Griffith perceived laboratory work as something that happened "overnight". When reading about the evolution of studying psychology in laboratories, it seems like it happened gradually, beginning with Wundt and James.
it has inherited from the physical sciences a well-rounded methodology and a refined laboratory technique; and from the sciences of life, a "genetic" way of regarding mind in its relation to life
This is a great way to describe how psychology has "borrowed" from other scientific disciplines. Methodology is particularly important.
for it is one of the youngest of Philosophy's children
I found it really interesting to read about how much philosophy influenced psychology. Calling psychology a "child of philosophy" seems very appropriate.