Thanks David. I’ve lazily avoided reading Kuhn and at first scrolled on from your piece. But it’s you writing it so I circled back, and wow. I had no idea. He’s absolutely nailed the “science” and practice of psychology. The only thing is disagreement with is his claim that it’s not possible to compare different paradigms. In psychology the comparison should be in terms of client outcomes measured via well-designed studies. Secondary to this is the robustness of the underlying theory, especially whether or not there is an identified and verified mechanism of action. Almost all current paradigms fail on both counts.
Thanks David. I’ve lazily avoided reading Kuhn and at first scrolled on from your piece. But it’s you writing it so I circled back, and wow. I had no idea. He’s absolutely nailed the “science” and practice of psychology. The only thing is disagreement with is his claim that it’s not possible to compare different paradigms. In psychology the comparison should be in terms of client outcomes measured via well-designed studies. Secondary to this is the robustness of the underlying theory, especially whether or not there is an identified and verified mechanism of action. Almost all current paradigms fail on both counts.