Psychology

Raymond Fowler (1990), in his address to the American Psychological Association (APA), refers to the concept discipline, as it used in the academe, as the knowledge and information base of a broad field of study and instruction. In line with this, he recognizes Psychology as a core discipline . Such is the case since Psychology stands as a theoretical and applied science which provides the foundational knowledge used in other disciplines. He states, it provides a basic core of knowledge thatcontains concepts and content that are basic to the effective functioning of other disciplines . In his address, Fowler further specifies that the reason for Psychologys position as a core discipline may further be traced to the knowledge it provides regarding human behavior which is necessary to understand in order to further the different researches in the social sciences
    At the onset, it is important to note that there is a distinction between psychology, the reflection on human actions and conduct, and Psychology, the discipline that provides scientific and practical knowledge regarding the reflection on human actions and conduct. The distinction lies in the latters existence as the discipline which tackles the different aspects involved in the former. Within this context, in order to determine the necessary phenomena involved in the formation of the discipline of Psychology, the focus ought to be on the different intellectual, cultural, and social aspects that led to the formation of the field that problematizes psychological actions and its components. Such an approach would thereby take into account the intellectual, cultural, and social aspects that led to the problematization of psychological events and how the problematization of these events led to the formation of a distinct field in science, that being the field of Psychology. It is important to note at the onset that the various phenomena which are considered to be necessary in the development of the discipline of Psychology in this discussion merely take into account the current characteristics of the field as it exists today.
     The intellectual, cultural, and social phenomena that led to the formation of Psychology as a discipline may be roughly divided into three parts (1) the introduction of psychology in philosophical thought, (2) the shift from philosophy to Psychology, and (3) the formation of scientific Psychology. The discipline of Psychology, in this sense, may be seen as a discipline whose concepts have been derived from both the pre-scientific and the scientific age. This is apparent if one considers that the basic questions that the discipline aims to answer involves the (1) problem of knowledge, (2) problem of conduct, and (3) problem of the polis. Given that these problems have been tackled since the Hellenistic period in Greece and even in the period of Confucianism in the East, one may state that the intellectual roots of the discipline may be traced to that period. Examples of these are evident in the philosophies of the Hellenistic philosophers Plato and Aristotle.
    Both Plato and Aristotle were concerned with the problem of knowledge. In the case of Plato, he situated the problem within the context of his Theory of Forms. As opposed to this, Aristotle situated the problem within the context of his Scala Natura or the ladder of nature. Both philosophers utilized their theory of knowledge in explaining the conduct of individuals as well as the organization of state. Although these concepts were rejected by the Behaviorists, they were reintroduced in Psychology through the works of Brentano and other contemporary Psychologists. The initial refusal to accept the Hellenistic philosophies in the discipline stood as a result of the shift from philosophy to Psychology wherein the later is perceived as a purely scientific discipline. This shift, which was made possible by the developments in science during the 17th and 18th centuries led to the reassessment of philosophical questions thru methods that were then perceived to be purely scientific in nature. An example of this shift from the philosophical method to the scientific method in the assessment of issues pertaining to psychology is apparent in Bacon who forwards the following claim, We come therefore now to that knowledge whereunto the ancient oracle directeth us, which is the knowledge of ourselves which deserveth the more accurate handling, by how much it toucheth us more nearly. It was also Bacon, who initially distinguished between what would later on be referred to as theoretical and experimental psychology as he claims,
Human Knowledge which concerns the Mindhath two parts one that enquireth of the substance or nature of the soul or mind, the other that enquireth of the faculties or functions thereof. Unto the first of these, the considerations of the original of the soul, whether it be native or inventive, and how far it is exempted from the laws of matter. These general characteristic of intellectual developments during the 17th and 18th century, as can be seen in Bacons thought, led to the institutionalization of the discipline of Psychology during the 19th century.
    It is at this point that it is important to show the relationship between the intellectual, cultural, and social phenomenon that led to the formation of the discipline. Without the intellectual developments from the Hellenistic period until the 19th century, the cultural and social phenomena which led to the formation of the discipline would not have taken place. Consider for example that without the publication of Galileos works, the shift from the focus on religion to the human being would not have enabled the beginning of the Renaissance period in history. At the same time, without the focus on scientific thought, the necessity for the formation of universities would not have happened during the 19th century. In consequence, the discipline of Psychology may not have the current characteristics and components that it possesses as of today. 
The Role of Behaviorism in the Development of North American Psychology
(Answer to Question Number Two)
    In the beginning of the 20th century, there was shift from behaviorism to cognitivism in Psychology. Evidence of this can be seen in the shift from the conception of Psychology as the description, prediction, control, and explanation of behavior to the conception of Psychology as the description and explanation of consciousness. The former is a result of behaviorisms focus on objectivism, environmentalism, and reinforcement . The later, on the other hand, is a result of cognitivisms focus on positivism, cognition, and representations. The main reason for the occurrence of such a shift may be attributed to the limitations of behaviorism, one of which is its inability to provide explanations for the existence of mental states.  In addition to this, the other criticisms of behaviorism may be inferred from the following characteristics of the theory (1) Its hostility to metaphysics, (2) Its acceptance of purely pragmatic goals, (3) Its pure materialism, (4) Its subjugation of human science to social ends, (5) Its narrow data base, (6) Its commitment to utilitarianism, (7) Its focus on experimentation (Behaviorism, 2009). Overall, these characteristics of behaviorism led to the minimal application of the theory when it comes to the assessment of psychological phenomena.
    As a result of the shift from behaviorism to cognitivism, there were those who argued that behaviorism has slowed the progress of Psychology for almost 50 years. Such a claim however is unwarranted for several reasons. First, to assume that behaviorism slowed the progress of Psychology for almost 50 years involves the assumption that behaviorism was not a necessary component for the development of cognitivism and the other psychological theories which followed it. Second, to assume that behaviorism slowed the development of Psychology for almost 50 years involves the assumption that behaviorism is no longer relevant in Psychology. Finally, to assume that behaviorism slowed the development of Psychology for almost 50 years involves the assumption that the elements which were necessary for the formation of cognitivism and the other theories that followed it already existed during the time-frame of behaviorisms dominance within Psychology.
    The refutation of the first assumption merely involves a presentation of the influence of behaviorism on cognitivism. It is important to note that one of the main achievements of behaviorism lies in its introduction of experimental psychology. The experiments of Pavlov, Watson, Skinner et. al. introduced the means through which quantitative methods may be used in psychological research. This was incorporated in cognitive psychology as can be seen in the experiments of Piaget, Bandura et. al. In line with this, Robert Sternberg  J. Mio (2008) explicitly state cognitivisms influence on behaviorism as they claim, Cognitivism is, in part, a synthesis of earlier forms of analysis, such as behaviorism and GestaltismLike behaviorism, it has come to use precise quantitative analysis to study how people learn and think.
    Given that the developments in cognitivism were also influence by the methods of behaviorism, it follows from this that it is not the case that behaviorism is no longer relevant in Psychology which thereby debunks the second assumption against behaviorism mentioned above. The reasons for this are as follows. First, the continuous relevance of a discipline may be traced to its ability to provide pertinent answers to certain phenomena. The shift from cognitivism to behaviorism was a result of the laters limitations, one of which was mentioned in the initial part of the discussion. Second, the continuous relevance of behaviorism may be traced to cognitivisms expansion of the early behaviorist theory presented by Angell (Leahey, 1992, p.311). According to Leahey, the development of cognitivism today merely expounds on the initial definition of behaviorism presented by Angell. He claims, The coming of cognitive psychology isthe appearance of a new form of behaviorism based on a new technology, the computer. It is in line with this claim that one may provide a counter-argument against the third assumption against behaviorisms pertinence in the development of Psychology in the past 50 years.
    It is important to note that cognitivism, as it is used in Psychology as opposed to philosophy, was introduced within the context of Karl Lashley and Donald Hebbs initial criticism of behaviorism. Research within the field however began during the same time as technological innovations in science were able to mimic certain characteristics and functions of the human brain. It may be argued that without these developments, cognitivism would not have been possible.
The Relationship between Cognitive Psychology of the Late 20th Century, Wundts Cognitive Psychology and Early North American Psychologists Focused on Consciousness
(Answer to Question Number Three)
    Cognitive psychology refers to the study of how people perceive, learn, remember, and think about information. The roots of cognitive science may be traced to Wilhelm Wundts focus on the structure of the mind and William James focus on the function of the mind.  In the process of focusing on the structure of the mind, Wundt conceived of psychology as the investigation of physiological conditions of conscious events. As opposed to this, both James and Dewey conceived of psychology as the investigation of mental conditions of conscious events. The former gave rise to the development of structuralism in the discipline of Psychology whereas the later paved the way for the development of functionalism in the discipline. Structuralism here refers to school of thought that conceives of human behavior in terms of abstract structures that are logical or mathematical in nature. As opposed to this, functionalism refers to the school of thought that conceives of human behavior in terms of thought processes manifested in human behavior.
    The conflict between structuralism and functionalism later on led to the development of associationism which is evident in the theories of Hermann Ebbinghaus and Edward Thorndike. Associationism here refers to the school of thought that examines the relationship between the physiological and mental components of human thought. From associationism, behaviorism developed as a result of several psychologists emphasis on the importance of physical relations as opposed to mental relations in the assessment of human behavior and human thought. During the initial period of the formation of behaviorism, psychologists dismissed the mental component in the formation of human behavior. Criticism were only presented in the later part of the 20th century as Tolmann and other behaviorists noted the role of mental processes in the formation of human behavior.
    Within this context, one may note that the relationship between the cognitive psychology of the late 20th century and the cognitive psychologies of Wundt and the early North American psychologists such as James may be attributed to the laters influence in the development of the former. This influence is apparent in the late 20th century cognitive psychologists focus on both the structural and functional components of mental processes. An example of this can be seen in Jean Piagets cognitive theory of development. In the process of determining the structural developments in the childs brain, Piaget also presented the functional developments in the childs mental activities. In a sense, one may note that current cognitive science also presents a synthesis of the early versions of structuralism and functionalism that were presented in Wundt and James theories. 
    An additional similarity between these various versions of cognitive psychology throughout the 20th century may be traced to their re-association of the field with philosophy. In the case of Wundt, he perceived psychology as a part of the rejuvenation of philosophy. The reason for this may be traced to Wundts emphasis on the role of psychology in the development of human civilization. He states, The task of this area of psychology consists of examining those psychic processes that form the most basic foundation for the development of collective humankind and of the development of shared mental products. In the same manner, James also perceived psychology as an important component in determining both interest and choice. Although James did not explicitly claim the necessity for the disciplines re-association with philosophy, his later shift to pragmatism as well as his conception of the relationship between mental states with choice and interest places his theory within the context of the philosophy of action. In line with this, the current manifestations of the re-association of cognitive psychology with philosophy are apparent in the continuous dialogue between both disciplines as they both tackle the role of mental states in determining consciousness as well as the basic components of knowledge.
    Within this context, the relationship between the various versions of cognitive psychology throughout the 20th century may be traced to but are not limited to the following aspects (1) their focus on the cognitive or mental states, (2) their focus on how mental states affect human behavior, (3) their existence as a separate paradigm from an existing paradigm, (4) their synthesis of previous paradigms in psychology and (5) their conception of the relationship of psychology with philosophy.