Welcome

Index of Papers

Poetry

Copyright

About this site

Questions

Are there ever 'answers'
Knowledge lies in the answer
Finding satisfaction

Fundamental proposition
Nothing beyond explanation

About myself

Keywords and descriptions
Epistemology
Philosophy
Psychology
Theory of Science
Mind
Consciousness
Theoretical Social Science
Causality
Evolution of mind
Spirituality

Retaining mystery and wonder

History of a personal search

About the papers

Papers to be developed

Contact Dr Little

Philosophy Links  

To search this site please enter a word below and press 'Search'


Psychology.

It is finding an answer to the question: why do we do what we do? Any such answer is to be scientific, including nothing unable to be assessed. Note: I did not say 'measured'. What is and is not science has yet to be established, but I can say that I accept no current views or definitions as adequate (see key word 'theory of science').

It seems to be not dealing with people to discuss a theory describing all that is the person in abstract terms. But this distinction as you will see, becomes crucial. It is a function of the question: what is it we can know of all people? And how does this understanding fit to a specific person in specific circumstances?

Imagine a pendulum, it can be simply a weight on the end of a piece of string. The formula describing the time period of the pendulum is given by multiplying a constant (twice pi divided by the square root of the gravity constant) by the square root of the length summarised as T= L (period is a function of length). This then is our theory of the pendulum.

Question: what is the period of a pendulum in Timbuktu? Can we establish it from the theory? The answer is yes, if we get some one to measure the length of the pendulum and then insert the value in the theory we can calculate the period. (Note also, to be exact we would need to get the precise value of the gravity constant at Timbuktu, because that would effect our answer.)

I argue that any theory of psychology must bear the same relationship with a person in some specific circumstances. The theory can only describe what information we need and how that information relates to the answer we seek. I argue it is and can never be any other way.

The effect of this is to draw a sharp distinction between a variable such as length, and the value of that variable in specific circumstances. See key word 'theory of science'. For something as simple as length, this seems obvious. For people it is not so obvious, for the consequence is to distinguish between those variables able to describe all that we do and could do, and the values of those variables. The variables and the relationship between them are our theory, while the values of the variables describe the living reality for some person in some situation. A further consequence is that every set of living values, because in part of the complexity is unique. Consciousness is unique for each and every one of us, and is how the values of the variables come together in us. Understanding of our unique consciousness can only be achieved by measuring the values of the variables as they are expressed in I.

The intent here is to create a general theory of psychology that embraces all that we are. But it will not and cannot tell us what it is like to be you or me.

 

 


Copyright © 1999 - 2001 Graham R. Little.
Web Site Problems? email the WebMaster.       Site hosted by Strobe Net.