IUBio

Neuroscience vs. humanistic psychology

c_thomas_wild at my-deja.com c_thomas_wild at my-deja.com
Fri Jun 30 09:08:31 EST 2000


In article <3959AD7E.1E27A234 at nospam.net>,
  rh <rh at nospam.net> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out how a humanistic/phenomonological
> philosopher or psychologist approaches the findings of neuroscience
> and neuropsychology.  From what I can tell, phenomenologists
> regard empirical psychological findings with suspicion.
>
> Can someone explain this position to me?
>
When one looks at hard neuroscience (often research done by medical
doctors) and syndromes such as the Epilepsy syndrome, the ADHD
syndrome, Tourette's syndrome, or Parkinson's syndrome, there is lots
of good information available as to how the brain and mind work
physically including some medicines which can be helpful for some
clients (not all).  When one shifts to humanistic psychology only and
attempts to take a look at neurological challenges like Epilepsy, ADHD,
Tourette's, or Parkinson's, there is nothing there/almost nothing.
That's my view.  There is some humanistic psychology which is very
similar to some of the ideas presented by Earl Nightingale, Anthony
Robbins, or N. Hill which is known to be helpful to some people.
Again, that's my view.  As a generalization, the medical community
tends to have a gift for seeing detail vs the humanistic psychology
approach which tends to be quite broad, general (in my view muddy and
vague) and does not like detail often considering details confusing.
The medical community might define pi as 2.14...and so on vs the
humanistic psychology community which might define it as exactly 2.0.
What's the best long term answer?  In my view, the pi number of 2.14
is the best long term answer as it mirrors the most precision and
accuracy.  The world is a large place and there is room for both groups
it seems to me.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net