Psychology – Science and Common Sense – Some Questions

The problems involving the definitions of science, as well as its structure, function and validity, that is, epistemological problems, have been present since Plato. The Greek philosopher, by opposing opinion – dóxa – to true knowledge – knowledge achieved through noésis – hierarchizes knowledge and makes evident the problem of the relationship between the two types of knowledge, in addition to other metaphysical consequences. The differentiation between scientific knowledge and common sense knowledge is difficult to determine historically, however the qualification of knowledge already appears in Hesiod – writing more linked to life in the countryside, writing aimed at common sense – and in Homer – writing aimed at people. aristocratic upbringing. This problematic division will receive several interpretations and divergent hypotheses.

The development of epistemology was associated with the scientific progress of the 19th century. An important theorist who deals with the problem of defining science and opposing it with knowledge arising from common sense was the French philosopher Bachelard. By analyzing the “scientific spirit” and its development and, even more important, by seeking to define what were the conditions for the formation of the “scientific spirit”, Bachelard speaks of the need to break with prejudices, with ideology, with opinion and with idolatry – which he calls “epistemological obstacles”. In this way, following the reasoning of the French author, experience cannot come above and before criticism, and thus, he describes the three stages for the formation of the scientific spirit: first, the spirit deals with the first images of the phenomenon, exalts the nature, highlights both unity and plurality in the world. This is the concrete state. In the second state, geometric schemes are attached to physical experiences. This is the concrete-abstract state. In the third state, “the spirit adopts information voluntarily subtracted from the intuition of real space, voluntarily disconnected from immediate experience and even in polemic with the first reality, always pure and formless” (GERMANO, 2010, p. 120).

Despite the existing conflicts between the various and diverse epistemologies, we can conclude – through the contribution of all authors, even if they are divergent – ​​that scientific knowledge is knowledge based on scientific rigor, that is, based on a scientific method which must aim at for discovering, describing and establishing the cause and effect relationship of a given phenomenon and must do so validly, that is, must follow the criterion of neutrality – this means that the researcher must abandon his personal conclusions before the investigated object.

What is common sense knowledge?

As we have already explained in the previous question, the problem of common sense knowledge appears when there is a division of knowledge into two categories: scientific knowledge and common sense knowledge. Common sense knowledge is produced in the social environment through historical experience. It is characterized by the absence of method; it is knowledge directed towards practice and which acquires truth value within the social environment in which it is found. It is intrinsically linked to the belief system of the subject’s social and cultural environment. Common sense knowledge is intuitive knowledge and its criterion of truth is not universal, that is, it varies according to each person’s belief and culture.

Science vs Common Sense: Is one mode of knowledge more important than the other?

I believe that each mode of knowledge has a utility within the context in which it is inserted: scientific knowledge is inserted in a context of scientific research (which advocates methods and arguments capable of validating the formulated hypotheses), in academic contexts, while knowledge social is inserted in the socio-cultural environment. The knowledge acquired through common sense can be very useful during the training process of a student, since it can serve as a starting point. Let’s take an example: the Egyptian and Mesopotamian peoples already had the knowledge, even without scientific proof, that the salt in the fish meat preserved it for longer so that it could be marketed. During a chemistry class, when explaining the chemical process of osmosis – a discovery made by René Dutrochet, in 1827 – the teacher can start from this knowledge that was already present in common sense knowledge from ancient peoples to a more complex thought, which requires more abstraction. I believe that knowledge acquired from common sense is relevant when used as an object of criticism and questioning. It is worth mentioning that common sense knowledge is linked to its historical time, it tells of the beliefs and social values ​​referring to this historical time. This category of knowledge also reflects, from the dissemination of the press and the Protestant Reformation (which gave incentive to teach literacy not only to people from the dominant classes; which, consequently, led to a greater qualification of common sense) the quality of knowledge produced by common sense. common, that is, if there has been an improvement in the education of people who are not part of any ruling class.

It should be borne in mind that each of the knowledge categories assumes a different status in the face of different analysis methods and, many times, they try to analyze the same object.

Why is Psychology recognized as a science? Does Psychology use common sense knowledge?

To answer that question, we have to quote the founder of positivism, Comte. The philosopher developed the idea of ​​science and defined the criteria for knowledge to be taken as scientific during Modernity. All knowledge that was supported by human beliefs was the target of Comte’s criticism. Thus, the only type of knowledge taken as true was scientific knowledge – which did not consider true common sense knowledge because it was not classified as scientific. The knowledge produced in the laboratory was considered scientific by this current of thought. Thus, the phenomenon of nature observed by the researcher should be reproduced in the laboratory so that the knowledge constructed about it could be verified and, subsequently, considered true.

Furthermore, psychology sought support in positivist theory to assert its scientific nature. Wundt was the founder of the first Psychology laboratory in 1879. Thus, Psychology became a science, as it carried out experiments that respected Comte’s criteria. Wundt’s experiment with the metronome, using analytical introspection as a scientific method, showed the possibility of describing the psychological impressions related to external stimuli. Thus, it was demonstrated by him that everyday sensations could be recreated in the laboratory following the criteria of positivist science.

Psychology, while defined as a science whose object is the study of man considering his psychological, social, biological aspects and his various modes of expression, takes advantage of common sense knowledge to analyze thoughts, reactions, dreams, language and behavior. However, the human psyche, in addition to being formed individually, is strongly related to the environment in which the subject is inserted.

Was positivism a theoretical current that criticized all knowledge based on human beliefs?

I agree with the positivist view when used in the field of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geometry, that is, Exact Sciences in general. However, I believe it is hardly possible for there to be a criterion of neutrality when questions are asked, for example, in the field of Historiography – where many hypotheses are formulated and very few can be verified within positivist standards. In this way, positivism proposes a notion of science and its criteria that may not be valid for some disciplines, such as, for example, in history.

Related