19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The neurosciences and the search for a unified psychology: the science and esthetics of a single framework

      research-article
      Frontiers in Psychology
      Frontiers Media S.A.
      unification, psychology, methodology, neurosciences, science studies

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The search for a so-called unified or integrated theory has long served as a goal for some psychologists, even if the search is often implicit. But if the established sciences do not have an explicitly unified set of theories, then why should psychology? After examining this question again I argue that psychology is in fact reasonably unified around its methods and its commitment to functional explanations, an indeterminate functionalism. The question of the place of the neurosciences in this framework is complex. On the one hand, the neuroscientific project will not likely renew and synthesize the disparate arms of psychology. On the other hand, their reformulation of what it means to be human will exert an influence in multiple ways. One way to capture that influence is to conceptualize the brain in terms of a technology that we interact with in a manner that we do not yet fully understand. In this way we maintain both a distance from neuro-reductionism and refrain from committing to an unfettered subjectivity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Social psychology as history.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            How to Talk About the Body? the Normative Dimension of Science Studies

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.

              The rapidly growing field of cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain. Some suggest that our emerging understanding of the physical causes of human (mis)behaviour will have a transformative effect on the law. Others argue that new neuroscience will provide only new details and that existing legal doctrine can accommodate whatever new information neuroscience will provide. We argue that neuroscience will probably have a transformative effect on the law, despite the fact that existing legal doctrine can, in principle, accommodate whatever neuroscience will tell us. New neuroscience will change the law, not by undermining its current assumptions, but by transforming people's moral intuitions about free will and responsibility. This change in moral outlook will result not from the discovery of crucial new facts or clever new arguments, but from a new appreciation of old arguments, bolstered by vivid new illustrations provided by cognitive neuroscience. We foresee, and recommend, a shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favour of a more progressive, consequentialist approach to the criminal law.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                07 October 2015
                2015
                : 6
                : 1467
                Affiliations
                Department of Psychology, University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada
                Author notes

                Edited by: Kevin Moore, Lincoln University, New Zealand

                Reviewed by: Nikita Kuznetsov, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA; Lisa Osbeck, University of West Georgia, USA

                *Correspondence: Henderikus J. Stam, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada, stam@ 123456ucalgary.ca

                This article was submitted to Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01467
                4595780
                3d0d5969-163f-40f1-a665-166a00e48337
                Copyright © 2015 Stam.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 June 2015
                : 14 September 2015
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 55, Pages: 9, Words: 0
                Categories
                Psychology
                Hypothesis and Theory

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                unification,psychology,methodology,neurosciences,science studies
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                unification, psychology, methodology, neurosciences, science studies

                Comments

                Comment on this article