"Debate is Over Syndrome": Applicable to Psychology?

I just read an interesting article here. Joel Kotkin talks about a well known (but little acknowledged) problem in broad intellectual society. The problem he describes is a simple one, the majority view is taken as "settled" fact and dissent is punished, sometimes quite vociferously, by members of the in-group.

Kotkin talks about this in the context of Climate Change, a contentious issue that I don't want to get in to here. He points out that a frequent refrain is heard; "The science is settled". Debate on climate change is stifled and ridiculed and people have lost jobs, careers, and fame because of their views. Worse, he points out that the people who are doing the punishing are usually the ones who are most certain of their own right-ness. Namely left-leaning intellectuals and well-funded right-leaning media moguls.

Typically, only one of those groups are considered to be biased; the right-leaning ones. However true of both groups is a blindness to the possibility that an error could have been made. In climate change this is seen in the scarily obtuse way it is discussed, the ridicule aimed at dissenters, and the sheer arrogance of proponents towards those who question established facts.

Climate change is a contentious issue as I said, I don't want to debate whether its real, or if it is, who or what is causing it. As far as I am concerned there is something there, but the science is far from settled.

Now on to the real reason I brought up this essay. I'm not so much interested in political bias (although it is a fascinating subject) but rather Psychologist Bias. I am a Radical Behaviourist, and as such definitely part of a (strong) minority. My views are casually belittled and in some cases ridiculed by the public and certain outspoken intellectuals. Most of this arises from misunderstandings, especially among the public; "Don't behaviourists believe we don't have thoughts? Don't they hurt animals and think people are the same as pigeons?" and so on...

Another example, more prevalent among academics, is the belittling of experimental methods. The behaviourist is not a fan of statistical inference. Not because we are afraid of statistics (although I do dislike them!) but because we don't see as many opportunities to use them as a standard experimental psychologist might. In Behaviour Analysis we use a method called single-case designs (not to be confused with case studies) which use a number of methods (mostly non-statistical) to analyse individuals or small groups and their behaviour.

I don't want to get too technical as I realise a lot of my readers are not trained scientists and it would probably get rather boring if I started expounding on the relative merits of p values and ANOVA's. What I want to point out is that the view I talked about above, the "debate is over syndrome", is quite prevalent among some psychologists. Now to be sure, I don't want to paint with a broad brush and I realise that many psychologists are quite respectful of behavioural psychologists and understand the reasons for why we do what we do, none the less there are some who believe that "the debate is over" and behavioural psychology lost. Anything I can do as a behavioural psychologist pales in comparison to the power of a statistical test and a hypothetico-deductive, mentalistic attitude.

There is still a lot we can learn from behavioural psychology, and from the methods and philosophical approach it employs, and I think it's highly premature to claim that the debate is over and cognitivism won. If you find yourself thinking this, I encourage you to meditate on these words by philosopher Ayn Rand; "Check your premises".

It is not, nor ever will be, my intention to offend. Cognitive Psychology has opened up a whole new, fascinating world of research to the psychologist and it would be foolish to ignore it's impact on the science, but at the same time it's important to remember that behavioural psychology is a viable, exciting science that still has a lot to teach us, and I, for one, hope more academics come to realise that more could be done if we set aside the dictatorial mindset of "debate is over" and returned to the halcyon days of science as an exercise in curiosity.