Is Psychology Based on a Methodological Error?

It is believed a proven fact that variables in social and personality psychology match to normal distribution with its single peak. Multiple peaks are explained by independent variables. However, after a comprehensive data analysis of more than 8.000 patients and on the basis of a bio-psycho-social model with 27 scales, we arrived at the conclusion that normal distribution and the psychometric error theory cannot withstand critical analysis in large samples. Beyond the “truth” that is proved by distribution-dependent statistical inferences, there exists another “truth” that is denied by the empirical doctrine. This “truth” is influenced by compensatory belief systems and explains paradoxes in quality of life research. We hypothesize that items, referred to life risks are micro-stressors, triggering self-regulatory processes as a humanly inherent response, deeply anchored in human evolution. Especially when exposed to threatening experiences, self-focused attention generates amplified multimodal distributions and subverts the methodological premises by an ambivalence-bias between thrill and threat, hopes and fears, pleasure and pain, success and failure, etc. In this article we want to focus attention to the incommensurability between test theoretical axioms and the way people usually respond to self-focused items. We discuss basic distribution patterns and approach to an evolutionary theory of fluctuation of validity.

Zwischen der „Physik des Organischen” und der „Organisierung der Physik”: Überlegungen zu Gegenstand und Methode der Biologie

Between Physics of Organism and Organismic Physics: Object and Method of Biology. In the history of biological theory one can observe an oscillation between two tendencies of thinking, namely the biologistic and the physicalistic point of view. Both aim at a general or unified theory of nature that is relevant for scientific research as well as for philosophical reflection. In terms of a pluralistic approach these two ways of theory-formation must be rejected. Biology e.g. as a specific natural science, characterized by its mid-position between ‘nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’ thinking (Windelband), is much more than a subordinate branch of physical knowledge. This very autonomy of biology does not only result from a special methodology or from a specific theoretical framework. On the contrary, the methodological and functional autonomy of biology is due to the very features of the phenomena investigated. These features include multitude, individuality and wholeness. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Theoretical foundations of analytical psychology: recent developments and controversies

This article gives an introductory overview of the papers in this volume originally given at the Joint Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel, October 18‐20, 2018. The aim of the conference was to bring core concepts of analytical psychology together with theorizing and research from academic sciences, at the very place where Jung started his academic career, the University of Basel. The conference focussed on three fields: the relationship of consciousness and the unconscious and the theory of complexes; the theory of archetypes; and the status of analytical psychotherapy in contemporary psychotherapy research. The aim of the conference was to further the development of theory in analytical psychology in relation to results and insights in contiguous areas of knowledge. In the first area, contributors pointed to the solid evidence especially from the neurosciences for the psychodynamic conceptualizations of the unconscious, and also for the concept of complexes. In contrast to this, the concept of archetypes is controversial, with a majority of contributors questioning Jung’s biological conceptualizations of archetypes, and speaking instead for reformulations from the perspective of cultural theory, dynamic systems theory and other approaches. In the field of psychotherapy research, contributors pointed to the profound need for conducting more empirical studies on the outcome of Jungian psychotherapy, but also for a thorough reconsideration of standard research designs in the field.     

A lemma science of mind: the potential of the Kegon (Flower Ornament) Sutra

The paper argues for a new perspective on the relationship between Buddhism and European psychology, or sciences of the mind, based in the Kegon Sutra, a text that emerged in the early stages of Mahayana Buddhism (3^rd ‐ 5^th century CE). The basis of European science is logos intellection, formalized by Aristotle as following three laws: the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. Logic in the Buddhist tradition, by contrast, is based in lemma (meaning to understand as a whole not with language, but with intuition). Lemma‐based science born in the Buddhist tradition shows that rational perception is possible even without the three laws of logos. The Kegon Sutra, which explains what Buddha preached only a week after he attained enlightenment, is unified under the logic of lemma and can be seen as an effort to create a ‘lemma science of the mind’. The fundamental teaching of the Kegon Sutra is explored, and its principles are compared with primary process thinking and the unconscious as outlined by Freud and Jung. Jung's research of Eastern texts led him to create a science of the mind that went further than Freud: his concept of synchronicity is given by way of example and can be seen anew within the idea of a lemma‐based science.     

Forschungsprogramm und Wissenschaftsentwicklung

For Imre Lakatos hismethodology of scientific research programmes was not only a philosophical theory of science and scientific change but also the conceptual foundation of empirical and historical studies of science. At least terminologically this view is today widely accepted: The concept of aresearch programme is used in all sorts of literature on science. In the present paper I argue that this concept can lead to serious distortions of empirical and historical studies of science if it is not detached from the Lakatosian philosophical framework. Themethodology of scientific research programmes has three main pitfalls, which may lead to disorientations of empirical and historical studies of science: (1) Contrary to what the term research programme may suggest, it offers no perspective on scientific research as an object of analysissui generis; (2) its concept of science is too narrow and covers only minor parts of what counts as science in the real world; (3) it reduces history of science to a mere sequence of research programmes and thereby eliminates the fact that there is an evolution of the structure of research programmes, too.

---

Der vorliegende Beitrag ist die überarbeitete und erweiterte Fassung eines Vortrages, den der Verfasser im Juli 1988 auf einem vomInstitut für Gesellschaft und Wissenschaft gemeinsam mit demInterdisziplinären Institut für Wissenschaftstheorie und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg veranstalteten Kolloqium gehalten hat.