Compare and contrast Kuhn’s explanation of scientific revolution with Popper’s falsification theory Kuhn and Popper are two well established philosopher who introduced ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolution’ and the ‘Theory of Falsifiability’ respectively. Kuhn was a critique of Popper’s work. He introduced the terms normal science, revolutionary science and paradigm. Popper on the other hand refuted logical positivism and established the Theory of Falsifiability. He suggested the usage of deduction rather than induction in scientific work.
Introduction: In the attempt to explain human behaviour, one of the oldest debates in psychology is the issue of nature versus nurture. This debate revolves around the extent to which genetic inheritance and external environmental factors affect human behaviour. At one end there are the nativists which believe that human differences are based of genetic codes. On the other hand, there are the empiricists who believe the human mind at birth is a blank slate and is eventually “filled” by experience. The nature versus nurture debate relates to many different areas of psychology such as language acquisition, prejudice, intelligence and many other areas of study.
“Phrenology continued to progress, and there then seemed to be no reason why it should not take its place among the recognized sciences,” wrote Alfred Russell Wallace in his 1898 The Wonderful Century.1 Phrenology is a pseudoscience focused on the measurements of the skull, using the understanding that the brain is the organ of the mind, phrenology proposes that localize areas of the brain have specific functions. While an outdated concept today, phrenology was the seed to multiple fields of academia, including psychology. It is widely known for as the first attempt in a scientific system for human psychology. Phrenologists themselves were the first to propose that behavior could be understood and shaped through the application of scientific
Implicitly he was proposing a revolutionary new theory of the human psyche itself. Freud is the founding father of psychoanalysis, a method for treating mental illness and also a theory which explains human behavior. In 1900 to 1905 develop a topographical model of the mind, and the theory of psychosexual develoment and of the Oedipus complex. Freud in 1923 developed a more structural model of the mind comprising the entities id, ego and superego (what Freud called “the psychic apparatus”). These are not physical areas within the brain, but rather hypothetical conceptualizations of important mental functions.
Defense mechanisms make good things feel better for the individual. Memories banished to the unconscious, or unacceptable drives or urges do not disappear. They continue to exert a powerful influence on behavior. The forces, which try to keep painful or socially undesirable thoughts and memories out of the conscious mind, are termed defense mechanisms. We use defense mechanisms to protect ourselves from feelings of anxiety or guilt, which arise because we feel threatened, or because our id or superego becomes too demanding.
Social realism can offer a perspective, or ‘piece of the puzzle’ to attain a deeper comprehension. Know your place and role in things - Where do we fit in the scheme of things around us? Social realists may encourage a healthful level of introspection. Understand values and patterns of identification - Culture has many codes and identities, often very difficult to decipher and made additional complex by the proliferation of types of media. Social realism has historically been a good decoder or barometer of a complex situation.
It remained a change of emphasis rather than a new philosophical position. Attempts were made to find out in the idea of organism in biology. The emergence of biological form and the relationship between biological and ecological systems, but these, too, were in the long run reducible to simpler parts, their properties and the relation between them. Even systems theory, although it talked more about the complexity of aggregates, does so in terms of causal feedback loops between various constituent parts. It’s only evident with quantum theory and the reliance of the being or identity of quantum entities within their contexts and links that are genuinely new, "deep" holism
So Adler found it better to part his company with Freud and did the same in the year of 1911. Later, Adler found the rival school of thought, that is the individual psychology, as he calls it. He was mainly interested in the psychology of the person as a whole rather than in parts. What he meant was ‘indivisible psychology’. While Freud dealt with unconscious, Adler gave importance to the conscious, goal-directed behavior (Kalat, 2013).
This seems to reflect a deterministic view, which in addition could be seen as limitative because the possible influence of other factors is not sufficiently taken into account. It could be argued, for instance, that the appearance of consistent behaviour may be caused, at least partially, by the similarity of situations in which people are usually involved and in response to which they develop standard reactions based on cognitive factors, social and cultural influences, etc. Indeed, apart from built-in personality traits, other factors, such as the environment and the interaction personality-situation, are nowadays acknowledged as having an impact on behaviour and require that personality is examined on multiple levels (e.g. Funder,
Erikson claimed that Freuds’ theories are structural, fixed and every life event is linked to early childhood experiences. Erikson also criticizes the idea of normal and ill mind that Freud has. Unlike Freud, Erikson was interested in going forward, ego investments in adults, developmental direction and health. Freud believed that abnormality was the starting point to understand normality, Erikson believed the opposite. Also unlike Freud, Erikson thought that the history of psychology was focusing on fragmentation not human integration.