Tammik Valdar
Institute of Psychology, Tallinn University, Narva mnt 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia,
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2014 Dec;48(4):384-92. doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9282-2.
Smedslund and Ross (2014) have offered us an interesting opinion article concerning the usefulness of empirical research for psychological practice. Appraisal of research is obviously contingent upon the way it is conceptualized and although the authors are involved with rather different kinds of practical problems they nevertheless conceptualize research in exactly the same way. This entails a possible mismatch between questions asked and methods used to answer them. I will try to add to the discussion by examining more closely how the authors conceptualize research and discuss the problems of mismatch between questions, methods, methodology, and epistemology. I claim that the authors' view of research misses some important aspects of scientific reasoning and follows an unjustified epistemological position. Part of the arising controversy is a rather natural consequence of this but could be overcome by reconsidering the aims of science and getting epistemology, methodology and questions in line. Although I focus on the specific article and the authors' positions, I hold that the issues discussed are common and general.
斯梅德伦德和罗斯（2014年）为我们提供了一篇有趣的观点文章，内容是关于实证研究对心理实践的有用性。对研究的评估显然取决于其概念化的方式，尽管作者们涉及的实际问题大不相同，但他们对研究的概念化方式却完全一样。这就导致了所提问题与用于回答这些问题的方法之间可能存在不匹配。我将通过更仔细地审视作者们如何对研究进行概念化来为讨论增添内容，并讨论问题、方法、方法论和认识论之间的不匹配问题。我认为作者们的研究观点遗漏了科学推理的一些重要方面，并且遵循了一种不合理的认识论立场。由此产生的部分争议是这种情况的相当自然的结果，但可以通过重新考虑科学的目标并使认识论、方法论和问题保持一致来克服。虽然我关注的是这篇具体的文章和作者们的立场，但我认为所讨论的问题是常见且普遍的。
