Stam Henderikus J
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary Calgary, AB, Canada.
Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 7;6:1467. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01467. eCollection 2015.
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.
长期以来,寻找所谓的统一或整合理论一直是一些心理学家的目标,即便这种寻找往往是隐性的。但是,如果成熟的科学并没有一套明确统一的理论,那么心理学为何要有呢?在再次审视这个问题后,我认为心理学实际上在其方法以及对功能解释(一种不确定的功能主义)的坚持方面实现了合理的统一。神经科学在这个框架中的地位问题很复杂。一方面,神经科学项目不太可能更新并综合心理学的不同分支。另一方面,它们对人性的重新阐释将在多个方面产生影响。捕捉这种影响的一种方式是将大脑概念化为一种我们以尚未完全理解的方式与之互动的技术。通过这种方式,我们既与神经还原论保持距离,又避免陷入不受约束的主观性。