Reviews for Parenthood: Its Psychology and Psychopathology

The average rating for Parenthood: Its Psychology and Psychopathology based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2017-09-25 00:00:00 Burney Hollis I very much enjoyed the set of introductory essays to philosophy of science included in the second edition(1988) of this book. While I had previously read and enjoyed Popper and Kuhn, and was vaguely aware of Carnap and Quine, possibly at second hand, I was not familiar with most of the authors included – and I now feel somewhat embarrassed at having to confess prior ignorance of Hempel. While Feyerabend -Science’s enfant terrible, bete noir or bugbear- was also unknown to me by name, I had come across the key ideas expressed in his outrageous How to defend Society against Science which have, unfortunately, become staples of some of the fuzzier strands of postmodernist thought. The essays are organized into six parts. In the introduction, the editors provide readings on what is known as the demarcation problem, i.e. what is and what is not science. Why is astronomy, but not astrology, considered a science? Can psychoanalysis be considered a scientific method? Can we distinguish between science, bogus science, pseudoscience and nonscience? How? Part two, Explanation and Laws contains essays about what constitutes a scientific explanation and in what sense does it, or can it, actually “explain” anything. Key to these questions is the matter of what is a scientific “law”? In part three, Theory and Observation, essays grapple with what is observable, what role does perception play in observation, whether science deals deals with observables or non-observables -in what sense can an electron be considered observable or non-observable, does it even exist? What is a scientific theory and what is its relation to observables and non-observables? To what extent are observations theory-independent? So somehow we have theories, and somehow we devise experiments that either confirm or refute those theories. Part four, Confirmation and Acceptance provide essays that explore what it means to say that the results of an observation confirm a theory. The very titles of the essays included in this part, Hypothesis (Quine, Ullian), Justifying Scientific Theories (Giere), Objectivity, Value Judgement, and Theory (Kuhn), Scientific Rationality: Analytic vs. Pragmatic Perspectives (Hempel), The Variety of Reasons for the Acceptance of Scientific Theories (Frank) provide a rough idea of the variety of ideas that underlie this important topic. In what sense can a theory be considered a set of working hypotheses, and in what sense, or to what degree do they represent a consensus between scientists and thus a social artifact? Is Science value-free or value laden? What are the connections between science and values? In what sense can science study or provide guidance to moral values? In what sense do moral values underlie science? This is the topic explored in part five. Finally can science provide us with answers about the meaning or the purpose of life or the universe? Can the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" be 42, as Douglas Adams wittily claims in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe? :-) The essays are stimulating, occasionally infuriating or mind-boggling, thought-provoking, sometimes dizzying as they cut the ground from under the reader’s armchair. More than a few are brilliant and more than a few of the most brilliant contradict or poke holes in each others arguments. Some seem right, in spite of ending up riddled with holes, others seem obtusely or even perversely wrong -it is definitely a lively debate and the editors are to be congratulated on their selection. In fact the readings constitute a lively dialogue as one author builds on the ideas of his predecessors, provides alternatives or points out their shortcomings. I do have one important caveat to make. There is a Philosophy of Technology which is distinct from Philosophy of Science -in my opinion a number of essays mistakenly conflate science with technology -technology may be based on science, but science and technology are not the same and they pursue very different aims. In particular, I believe that this mistaken identification undercuts many of the arguments regarding values and science of essays included in this book. One also winces at a couple of expressions that have become politically incorrect since the book was written. For example in the study questions for part three:”Surely all normal observers, when looking at the same thing, see the same thing.” [my italics]may be construed to suggest that a visually impaired person is not normalEven worse, is a study question for part two:What might be wrong with the explanation given in the following dialogue? Announcer: Why are the Bullets playing so much better this quartet? Color man: Well, it’s obvious that the momentum is on their side now.I particularly enjoyed Popper (always!), Hempel, Kitcher (Believing where we cannot prove), Cartwright -the only woman philosopher included in this book- (The Truth Doesn’t Explain Much), Carnap, Putnam, Giere (Justifying Scientific Theories), Toulmin (Do Sub-Microscopic Entities Exist?), Quine, Kline, and Hollinger (From Weber to Habermas, and Frank (The Variety of Reasons for the Acceptance of Scientific Theories). More contemporary readers who are more knowledgeable in this field will certainly consider the collection should be updated -William Cornwell who writes a Goodreads review on the third edition makes some excellent suggestions and I urge the interested reader to go to his review. The Wikipedia entry on Philosophy of Science suggests the book’s coverage of topics is, broadly speaking, still quite relevant on an introductory level, and that basically its main weakness is in its coverage of the “continental philosophical tradition” on the subject. The editors include excellent introductions to each of the six parts, study questions which make me glad I am not being examined by them ;-), and a list of annotated recommended further readings (“Select Bibliography”). I look forward to rereading these essays more carefully and digging a little more deeply into this challenging subject, as well as into the philosophy of technology and as, the Wikipedia entry suggests into the philosophy of some particular sciences. In conclusion, Klemke, Hollinger, and Kline succeeded extremely well in whetting my appetite…

Review # 2 was written on 2014-08-02 00:00:00 Gary Kallio The third edition of this book, copyright 1998, is a strong but dated collection of essays in philosophy of science. Most of the essays were published in the 1950s through the mid-1980s, although there is a small number of essays from the 1990s. As such, the book is similar to ones that a student or scholar might have consulted in the late 1980s and is not the best choice for students or scholars who need an up-to-date anthology. Nonetheless, for people who might supplement their reading of this book with more recent sources, this collection can provide a good foundation in the field. The book covers all the traditional, core areas of philosophy of science, as well as offering more readings than is typical on the social sciences. Yet, the the essay on philosophy of economics is from 1983 and is largely outdated given the dramatic changes in economics and the global economy in the last three decades. In addition, the book shortchanges more radical critiques of philosophy of science by having, for instance, only one essay, from 1996, on feminist critiques of science. I also am disappointed that the volume does not include an excerpt from Thomas Kuhn's seminal book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Instead, the volume has one essay by Kuhn in which he responds to critics of the book, but that's not the best way for someone to be introduced to Kuhn's ideas. I would not recommend that professors adopt this anthology unless they used it in conjunction with something else that was more contemporary, but for those wanting an affordable option to round out their collection of essays in the subject, this book may fit the bill.