Earliest Primate Described

Here's a bit of paleontological news. Researchers have just released news of a new, fossil primate: Darwinius masillae, discovered near Darmstadt, Germany. The fossil is both a new genus and new species, previously unknown to science. Click HERE to see the complete publication describing the new mammal.

Just in case you were wondering, the specimen is about 47 million years old and seems to be near the root of the line that eventually led to us: Homo sapiens. It is being labeled as a "missing link."

Here is what it looks like. Its actual size is about that of a small cat.

Science in the Modern World-After 37 years

I am re-reading Whitehead's Science in the Modern World. As I thumbed through my copy, bought for Dr. Bill Wagman's history of psychology course at the University of Baltimore, I came across an old bookmark. It was an IBM library punchcard (you know, the ones that said: "DO NOT FOLD, SPINDLE OR MUTILATE) I had taken from another library book. The due date was July 13, 1972.

That was probably the last time I had looked at Whitehead's book. I recall it being particularly dense reading back then. Thus far, I have only re-read the first two chapters. I was struck this time, however, by sentences like: "There is no reason to doubt the intrinsic capacity of individual Chinamen (emphasis added) for the pursuit of science." (p. 6).

A few years after I had graduated, I visited Wagman and we talked about the book. He said then that he had stopped using it in his history class. Students no longer had the ability to comprehend it, he said.

Now, I'm reading it again. In a few weeks I'll report back on how MY comprehension fares.

Are there laws of psychology?

One of the factors that led Mjøset (2001) to differentiate social science from physical science was that the latter had succeeded in formulating laws of nature such as the second law of thermodynamics. (Those laws are undisputed, universal statements about how nature works.) He noted that many early psychologists hoped to formulate similar laws of nature within psychology. Unfortunately, no such laws have yet been discovered, nor may they ever be. In some ways, then, the physical sciences have far surpassed the social sciences because of the presence and reality of physical laws. The situation is somewhat similar between the biological sciences and the physical sciences too. It is impossible to find biological laws either. Some social scientists, notably Merton (1949), simply decided to continue practicing science and forgo any hope of discovering universal laws. In psychology, a similar story exists. It is impossible to find results that apply in any situation. Instead, results must be carefully couched within a disciplinary, subdisciplinary, or finer-grained contexts. There are no laws of psychology.

All is not lost however. Some results have stood the tests of time and of multiple replications. While the examples to follow fail to reach the criterion of a scientific law they serve to illustrate real and reliable psychological data. The first example is Ebbinghaus’ research on human memory. His 1885 book, Über das Gedächnis (Concerning Memory) caused a sensation when first published. He was the first to show the relationship between memory and the passage of time. Simply put, we forget much more quickly soon after learning and forget much more slowly thereafter. The figure below shows the relationship between memory and time.

Ebbinghaus’ discovery does not rise to the level of a scientific law because other conditions (e.g., practice) can alter the relationship between memory and time. So, the relationship is real and reproducible but it does not apply to all types of memory. A second example is Shepard and Metzler’s (1971) mental rotation research. In a laboratory setting, they projected pairs of geometric stimuli to human participants. While the stimuli were projected in two dimensions, they were designed to convey information in all three dimensions. Participants had to decide quickly whether the two stimuli were alike or different. The stimuli which were alike were presented from 0° up to 180° of rotation from each other in any plane. Like Ebbinghaus, they discovered a remarkably straightforward relationship between the amount of rotation and the time it took to decide. As the rotation approached 180°, participants took longer to decide. Moreover, the relationship was linear. See the figures below for examples of the stimuli used and the results Shepard and Metzler found. Pigeons, too, have been tested for their abilities to



mentally rotate objects. Unlike humans, pigeons are able make accurate mental rotations from various points of view (Köhler, Hoffman, Dehnhardt, & Mauck, 2005). Humans perform mental rotations best while in a normal, upright position. Pigeons, on the other, hand perform mental rotations equally well regardless of their spatial relationship to the stimulus. Flying, apparently, affects how pigeons make mental rotations. Thus, the results show that different species make mental rotations differently. Again, while the results of mental rotation experiments are replicable, they are not universal. The species tested makes a difference.

References

Köhler, C., Hoffmann, K. P., Dehnhardt, G., & Mauck, B. (2005). Mental rotation and rotational invariance in the rhesus monkey. Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, 66(3), 158-166.

Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Mjøset, L. (2001). Theories: Conceptions in the social sciences. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes, (Eds.). International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. 23, 15,641–15,647.

Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701-703.

Psychology's Borders

Gray (2008) notes that psychology fits neatly in the middle of nearly every academic discipline. The figure below shows how Gray places psychology in a central position with the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities arrayed around it. He adds, “It would be impossible for people from any other department to draw a diagram nearly as elegant as mine that put their discipline in the center.” (p.30) I agree. The centrality of psychology creates borders between it and many nearby disciplines. Four disciplines: sociology, biology, computer science, and philosophy have especially intimate borders with psychology. Over time those borders have moved as well. Those border realignments are historically important to understanding 21st century psychology.

Psychology's central position in the academy is probably one reason why psychology courses and the psychology major are so popular.

Gray, P. (2008). The value of Psychology 101 in liberal arts education: A psychocentric theory of the university. Observer, 21(9), 29-32.

Zeitgeist of the Middle Ages

I spent the Christmas holiday working on a book proposal and playing golf (also a little tennis). One of the things I'm sending publishers is a description of what it might have been like to live in the Middle Ages. The textbook is for the history of psychology course, in case you are wondering.

For those who do not know, zeitgeist is a German word that describes what it feels like to live in a particular time and place.

Here goes:

The Zeitgeist of the Middle Ages

Religion was probably the most important difference between then and now. For during the medieval period, religion thoroughly permeated every aspect of life to a degree almost unimaginable today. Yet, at the same time, daily life contradicted those same religious principles. Violence was endemic and justice uncertain. Life was seen as a temporary state, a trial leading to eternal salvation or damnation. Thus, efforts were few to reform social structures or to change behavior because, for the blessed, salvation awaited; and, for the wicked, damnation. Religion also stifled creative thought because God's plan had already been revealed. All human explanations had to account for Biblical truth and for religious dogma. The world and humankind were unique reflections of God's creation. The gradual sense of a loss of uniqueness caused later by Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin were still far in the future.

Throughout the period, evidence of earlier Roman civilization still stood. Early in the period, a belief that the world was in decline must have been universal. Later, however, as new towns grew, and great cathedrals and castles were built such feelings probably abated some. However, our notions of constant and universal progress would probably have been unrecognizable. Instead of progress, stasis was a hallmark of the period. But, some technological change did take place, slowly. For example, the invention of the chimney allowed for the heating of individual rooms and served to separate the classes from the great common rooms before, where all huddled overnight around the only fire. Town clocks were built, and changed forever perception of time. In the service of war, metallurgy advanced.

Socially, the world was highly structured. The three estates consisted of the clergy, the nobility, and the rest of humanity. Within each estate, of course, large differences existed. The clergy had a special role given the religiosity of the period. The nobility are our main source of information about the period, because of their status. Comparatively little is known about the daily existence of peasants, but their lives can probably be safely assumed to reflect best the stasis of the period. Later in the period, as towns and commerce grew, a middle class developed. Jews, excluded from "proper" occupations, suffered throughout the period. Massacres, exiles, and discrimination were both common and viewed as righteous, given the Jews' alleged role as "Christ killers" and their subsequent refusal to adopt Christianity. In the same light, the Crusades seemed to make abstract sense, even though in a practical sense they were no testimony to Christian principles.

The universities of the Middle Ages were established to reconcile philosophy and theology. Early on in the history of universities, many of the religious orders opened houses of study. The course of study at the medieval university was much different than today's curriculum. The trivium, or introductory curriculum, consisted of three courses: grammar, logic, and rhetoric, while the quadrivium, or advanced curriculum, consisted of geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music. Books were all produced by hand and were, consequently, rare. Relatively few attended the university, and those came from the clergy or the nobility. (As an aside, the oldest universities are: Bologna, Paris, and Oxford)

So, life was far different during the medieval period than it is today. Yet, some of its vestiges still remain, such as superstitions and nursery rhymes. Zeitgeist yourself back to a medieval village. Imagine the smell of raw sewage flowing through the gutter in the center of the street. Think of the rigid class structure, the status of women, and the lives of children. Finally, examine how modern culture is descended from medieval culture, and what things have changed and what have not.

An Academic Pack Rat

I was reading Mischel's column in the November APS Observer. In that column, Mischel speculated about why psychologists reviewing grants are so tough on each other. He noted that it is relatively easy to judge the methodology of a study, but that it is a lot more difficult to judge the importance of the work within the larger context.

Mischel referenced a 1973 American Psychologist article by Cartwright, Determinants of scientific progress. So, I walked out of my office into the lounge where we keep our American Psychologists and picked up Volume 23, Number 3 (March, 1973) and opened it up to page 222. Our in-house collection goes back to 1955 and is largely complete. It represents the personal collections of several faculty over many years.

Next, I read Cartwright's article which is about the risky shift and how it became an important topic in social psychology. Cartwright wrote (p. 223), "Interest in the field [the risky shift] was heightened further by the publication of a popular social psychology text by Brown (1965), which devoted an entire chapter to this research and proposed an ingenious explanatory scheme to account for the major results known at the time."

It just so happens that when I took social psychology in 1970 as my second-ever psychology course, Brown's text was the one used. I walked over to my bookshelf, picked up the volume and found the chapter, Group Dynamics, and read the several pages on Stoner's original research on what is now called the risky shift.

Then, I went to my one of my file cabinets and retrieved my notebook from that 1970 class. On May 4, 1970 we discussed in class what Brown called Stoner problems in the text. Certainly, I did not recall that class or our discussion. A few pages later, I noted Stoner's name among the others the class was supposed to know for the final exam. (The other names for that chapter were Sherif, Asch, and Bales.)

While scanning my old notebook I was struck by how many topics that had been covered in that class were now totally familiar to me: Calhoun's rat crowding study, LeBoeuf's elephant seals, Harlow's attachment research, Heider's balance theory, Gestalt psychology, the founding of the Royal Society, and many more.

When I first read Mischel's column and Cartwright's article, I wondered what I was doing in March, 1973. I recall I was a senior finishing up my undergraduate degree in psychology at the University of Baltimore. Certainly, I was not thinking about what makes a particular piece of scientific research important. The other thing I thought of was how nice it is to have old materials at hand. It reinforces my pack rat tendencies.

New-ro Psychology

An article by David Glenn in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Psychology departments are changing their behavior (December 5, Volume 55, Issue 15, Page A1) discusses how research in psychology is changing because of neuroscience.

As we have noted earlier, the practice of science has become more of a team sport. Neuroscience is suited to groups of scientists working together because of its inherent complexity, large equipment costs, and necessity for specialization.

Like physics and biology before, psychology is now becoming "big science" and directors of research projects manage large budgets and supervises teams of scientists and assistants. Fortunately, according to Glenn, the emergence of neuroscience has, mostly, led to cooperation with older, traditional forms of behavioral psychology.

One exception, however, has been grant funding. Since 2004, the National Institute for Mental Health has changed its research priorities and now tends to fund research that has neuropsychological or genetic components. (Here is an article from APA on that topic.)

Glenn quotes Alan Kraut, APS's executive director, "Everybody, I think, would recognize that behavior is ultimately the result of biological, environmental, and genetic processes...But that doesn't mean that every study needs to have a biological component."

Clearly, psychology has entered a new era, one characterized by the search for the neurological causes of behavior. This is not a bad thing. However, it means that those who wish to research psychology will have to adapt and learn new ways to work together.

Utilitarian Views of Science

James Williams recently wrote about training science graduates to become science teachers in the New Scientist (free registration required). He has surveyed 74 of his graduates and found that many fail to understand basic scientific concepts despite being good students and well versed in their respective disciplines.

For example, only 11% of his students knew what constituted a scientific fact. Many (76%) thought that scientific facts were the same as the words "truth" and "proven." On the other hand, most (61%) understood the definition of a hypothesis and its provisional nature.

Williams interprets his results as being due to a lack of history or philosophy of science courses. Most of his students were good scientists, he maintained, but were not aware of how science fit into the big picture. Williams also worries that the lack of historical and philosophical awareness may affect how scientists counsel policymakers about issues such as global warming and cloning. If the scientists cannot understand these issues, they will not be able to advise others.

In our first chapter, we explicitly attempt to situate psychology, historically and topically, within the broader framework of science. We also briefly cover the philosophy of science and feature sections on Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. We strongly agree with Williams, science is more than learning methods and techniques. Scientists must be aware of how their discipline evolved and how their data fit into larger and important contexts. In other words, scientists should adopt something more than an utilitarian view of science.

Einstein: The Rest of the Story

In chapter 1, we briefly discuss the history of science and use John Horgan's idea of scientific surprises as an explanatory device. One of those scientific surprises is Einstein's theory of general relativity. We describe (pp. 15-16) how Eddington empirically confirmed Einstein's predictions:

In 1905 Albert Einstein (1879–1955) (Figure 1.6), an obscure Swiss patent examiner who was also a PhD candidate in physics, surprised the scientific world by publishing three extraordinary papers on physical phenomena. The first paper on the particle nature of light won him the Nobel Prize in 1921. One of the other two papers explained Brownian motion, the previously unexplained movements commonly observed in microscopic systems. Molecules themselves were causing the movement. The third paper eventually made him a worldwide celebrity; its topic was special relativity. In it, he demonstrated that time was a necessary fourth dimension to the three dimensions of space and that energy and mass were equivalent (E = mc²). When he extended that paper in 1915 to include gravity (general relativity) and when his theoretical predictions were later empirically confirmed, Einstein became a worldwide celebrity.

Figure 1.6 Albert Einstein

Einstein’s surprises were startling. His equations showed that time and space were not invariant, but that they changed depending on the motion of the observer. The equations also indicated that gravity warped space itself, a prediction confirmed by Edington’s observations of stars during a solar eclipse in 1919. At the atomic level, Einstein’s definition of light as quanta (small packets of light energy), led to the development of quantum mechanics, which was yet another scientific surprise. Like Galileo and Darwin before him, Einstein prompted a completely new worldview in which very small or very fast particles followed rules unlike any in the observable world.

Last night, the History Channel, broadcast a television documentary on Einstein which added much detail about the efforts empirical scientists underwent in order to confirm his predictions. That detail is provided by a new book, Einstein's Jury, by Jeffrey Crelinsten. In it, he shows how astronomers attempted to measure the predicted deflection of light caused by the Sun's immense gravity. Attempts were made in Crimea in 1914, but were interrupted by World War I. Another attempt was made by the Lick Observatory in America during the war. After the war ended, Eddington, a pacifist and a Quaker, thought that confirming Einstein's theory would do much to alleviate the deep discords between European scientists.

However, the solar eclipse of 1919 was observed by several groups of astronomers other than Eddington. Also, the Lick data, collected with second-rate equipment (the state-of-the-art telescopes were still in Russia, having been seized in 1914), showed that Einstein's prediction was wrong. News of Eddington's confirming but preliminary analyses made it to London at the same time that the Lick astronomers were about to announce the lack of agreement with the theoretical prediction. When they heard of the discrepancy, William Wallace Campbell, the head of the Lick group, delayed publication.

When Eddington fully analyzed the data, he confirmed Einstein's prediction that gravity did indeed deflect light, thus undermining classical Newtonian mechanics and making Einstein world famous, nearly instantly.

Here is the link to the December 2, 1919 New York Times story on Einstein and general relativity.

Coffee Research

I never drank much coffee before entering graduate school at LSU in Baton Rouge. Early in my first year I noticed two coffee urns at the end of the cafeteria line marked "Light" and "Dark." I turned to Pete Spiliotis, my predecessor in Don Hoffeld's lab, and asked the difference. He explained that dark was short for dark roasted or french roasted coffee, and that I should try a cup. I did and I was hooked.

By the time I left LSU for Milwaukee five years later, I was a Community Dark Roast coffee addict. So much of an addict that I had to order coffee by the case from Baton Rouge. In Milwaukee, I created a few coffee addicts including David Blackwelder, one of the grad students. One day he came into work complaining that he'd been awake all night. Seems he'd been drinking strong brewed dark roast into the wee hours. When I moved to Magnolia, Arkansas in 1980, I noticed that the local groceries stocked Community Dark Roast. I guess because we were only twenty miles from the Louisiana line. Since then, I have switched to Community's New Orleans blend. It adds chickory to the grounds.

Every year, the local schools hold their Red Ribbon week urging students not to do drugs. Alas, I cannot wear that red ribbon. I drink coffee for the kick. I tried going cold turkey a couple of years ago. That lasted about a week or less. It was my students who insisted that I start drinking again. They could not stand my coffee-free self, it seemed.

So, it was not passing interest that called me to read a recent New York Times article about coffee research titled, "Sorting out coffee's contradictions" by Jane E. Brody. She nicely summarizes coffee's myths and health benefits.

Among the myths are: coffee is not a diuretic, does not cause heart disease, hypertension, cancer, bone loss, or weight loss. Among the health benefits are: enhanced mood, performance, alertness, decreased reaction time, fat burning (instead of carbohydrates), lowered risk of Parkinson's and Type 2 Diabetes.

Whew, I guess I'll have another cup.

Elizabeth Loftus

This is additional material from the "cutting room floor." Originally, we thought of including examples of extremely successful scientists as a way of wrapping up chapter 1, Science. Here is our short biography of one such successful psychologist, Elizabeth Loftus.

Elizabeth Loftus currently holds joint faculty appointments. She is distinguished professor of psychology and social behavior at the University of California-Irvine and is affiliate professor of psychology and law at the University of Washington. Loftus received her BA from UCLA in 1966 and her PhD from Stanford in 1970. She began her academic career at New School University in 1970. From 1973 till the present she has worked at the psychology department at the University of Washington. In 1984, she began to serve as a law professor there too. In 2002, she was named distinguished professor at the University of California- Irvine as well (where she spends most of her time). Loftus is the author of 18 books and more than 250 articles. She has served on many editorial boards and as officer of several professional associations including the presidency of the American Psychological Society. She has also served as an expert witness on human memory in hundreds of legal cases.

At age 14, Loftus lost her mother to a drowning accident. To this day she believes that event marks a profound division in her life. Ever since that day, Loftus has seen herself as an agent for helping others. As an undergraduate at UCLA, she excelled at both math and psychology. Like Robert Sternberg, she attended Stanford and studied psychology. She married Geoffrey Loftus in graduate school. After graduating, he went to work at the University of Washington and she followed a year later (turning down an assistant professorship at Harvard to do so). Their marriage lasted 23 years, “...an accomplishment...” according to Loftus, given her work ethic. They are still friendly. Loftus fell into her first major research topic, eyewitness memory, because she wanted her research to have practical applications, and it has.

Early in her academic career (around 1972), Loftus was studying memory using pictures as stimuli. After a conversation with a man who had been convicted of killing someone in self–defense she began to use films of accidents as experimental stimuli. What she found surprised her. The participants who viewed the films gave her different answers depending on how she phrased the questions she asked them. The relationship between leading questions and eyewitness memory became her first major research project. She found that leading questions influenced eyewitness memory and that a large percentage of eyewitnesses (in her lab) insisted they had seen something that, in fact, they had never seen. They had, however, heard that thing mentioned while being questioned in an intentionally leading manner. For example, nearly 20% of participants claimed to have seen a barn in one of her films. In reality, there was no barn and only those who had been earlier asked a leading question about the non-existent barn claimed to have seen it. In 1999, the United States Department of Justice published guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony in criminal investigations that stemmed directly from Loftus’ research. Those recommendations call for law–enforcement personnel to avoid the use of leading questions and to place only one suspect in a line-up. Loftus’ eyewitness reliability research has been called one of the best examples of how psychological research can affect public policy (Foxhall, 2000).

Later, Loftus began to study the difference between repressed memories and false memories. Repressed memories are true memories that have become unconscious for a time and then re-appear. Repressed memories of child abuse are a common example. However, some memories that appear to be repressed are not true, they are false memories. Although false memories are not true, the person believes them to be true. After observing a link between some therapists and the subsequent revelation of incriminating memories by their patients, Loftus demonstrated that false memories could be induced in a small percentage of individuals (See Chapter 3 for a more complete discussion of this research.). Her research ignited a legal and psychological controversy. Because of the large number of criminal cases based upon repressed memories, Loftus began to testify as an expert witness on human memory at hundreds of trials including those of the Hillside Strangler, O. J. Simpson, Rodney King, the Menendez brothers, and the Oklahoma City bombing. Her success in defending people accused of crimes like murder and child–molestation has created enmity from prosecutors, their witnesses, and even the public. Because of her research, her public appearances often require security personnel to be present. Her work has caused her hardship and grief while also bringing her fame and prestige. Recently, she was named as one of the top 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (and the top ranked woman) putting her in the company of Freud, Skinner, and Piaget.

Reference

Foxhall, K. (2000). Suddenly, a big impact on criminal justice. Monitor on Psychology, 31 Retrived September 8, 2006 from http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/pi4.html

Theory in Biology

One of the early drafts of chapter 1 addressed the issue of theory in biology (a little) more deeply than the final draft of the book:

• "Unfortunately, the nature of biological and social science is such that it is impossible to simply apply physical science’s way of theorizing to them. In biology, the problem is that natural history plays a major role. All life on Earth evolved. It is simply not possible to experiment with living systems as it is with physical systems. In social science, the main problems are consciousness and the sheer number of possible causal variables. Neither biology nor social sciences have discovered any laws similar to those of the physical sciences. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution is basically a historical account coupled with a small handful of causal mechanisms such as common descent, natural selection, sexual selection, and gradualism. In psychology, the search for ideal theories of behavior has been unsuccessful and has led to modifications to ideal theory."

Contrast the passage above to what survived the cutting room floor in the final draft:

• "The success of physical science and its theories has been so spectacular that biologists and social scientists naturally tried to imitate them. However, theories in biological science and social science differ considerably from the ideal theories in physical science. Unfortunately, the nature of biological and social science is such that it is impossible to simply apply physical sciences's way of theorizing. Neither biology nor social science has yet discovered any laws as universal as those of the physical sciences (p. 26-27)."
  

A recent article (free registration required) in TheScientist.com by Eric Smith addresses some of the differences between biological and physical theorizing. Much of the article deals with whether or not evolutionary theory should occupy such a central position in biological theorizing. I'll ignore much of that argument and only cover the more fundamental differences in the two types of theorizing.

Smith gives four ways in which biological theory is different from physical theory. He also points out that none of the following features of biological theory are common in physics. Let's looks at the four features one by one.

1. Contingency: Smith uses contigency in a way similar to replication. He notes that unlike in the physical sciences, it is impossible to repeat the results of evolution by "replaying the tape." In fact, nearly everyone agrees that were the Earth to undergo a replay of the last 5 billion or so years the results would be very different. Those differences, of course, don't come from evolution or its mechanisms. (In fact, evolution itself is a product of our natural history. In any replay, there is no guarantee that evolution itself would again emerge. The smart money, most likely, would be against such a re-emergence.) Instead, the differences in the replay would come from unforeseen and unpredictable events such as meteorite impacts and other catastrophes.

2. Memory: To Smith, memory encompasses the creation of systems that can reliably reproduce the information contained within them. That mechanism, of course, is carried out by RNA and DNA and is quite remarkable in its ability to reproduce the information and to act upon the results of that information. Smith notes just how difficult it is to create memory systems that have survived for millions of years.

3. Control: In control, instructions mostly flow in one direction with incomplete feedback. In biological systems, natural selection functions as one controlling process. Only a few biological designs survive to reproduce themselves. In systems created by humans control is necessary too. However, we have had little luck as yet in constructing control systems able to repair and maintain themselves. In contrast, living systems can repair and maintain themselves while they are alive.

4. Individuality: Evolution and genetics end up creating unique individuals composed of common elements. Our 30,000 genes are shuffled to create individuals who are all different (excepting identical twins). The odds of two individuals sharing the same genetic components are incredibly small, on the order of 1 in 70 trillion. Smith notes that sheer numbers prevent biologists from looking at individuals. Instead, they seek out underlying "regularities" in living systems such as the citric acid cycle.

Biology, thus, has a different set of scientific questions than does physical or social science. One of the most profound of its questions is how life emerged from non-living processes. The nature of biology forces its theorists to adopt different modes of theorizing. Like social scientists, biologists, too, must seek their own ways to create theories and not simply ape the physical sciences.

Constraints to Theory in Social Science

In chapter 1 (page 26) we begin our discussion of theories in science by first describing the ideal theories of physical science. In the text, we characterize those theories as "laws of nature" and show how they seek laws that explain physical phenomena universally. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity work on Earth and everywhere else.

Upon re-reading The Arrow of Time, I noted that Layzer described laws and constraints thusly:

• "Laws and constraints are complementary aspects of the physicist's description of nature. Laws describe the regularities underlying phenomena; they are few in number and each applies over a wide domain. Constraints serve to select from the set of all events governed by a given law the particular phenomenon of interest. The laws define what is possible, the constraints what is actual or relevant. (p. 58-59)"

He lists the constraints as well: they are initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions. Social science theories, too, are governed by the same constraints.

Initial conditions will constrain much of what a social science theory can explain or what interventions can be made to a social system. My colleague, Tommy Milford (a social worker), is especially sensitive to the description and implementation of initial conditions in his work because he realizes how important initial conditions are. Well thought out interventions, for example, may fail if they are applied without regard to initial conditions.

In physical science, boundary conditions may reflect a number of possible solutions, typically associated with different, corresponding differential equations. In social science, however, boundary conditions are more likely to be akin to the natural boundaries we describe in law-oriented theories (p. 28). Law-0riented theories are highly restricted by those naturally-occurring boundaries so that, for example, theories in cognition are not likely to shine much light on the area of personality. Furthermore, theories that attempt to address issues is such disparate areas are likely to be weaker than theories that stick to their knitting within their natural boundary conditions.

The discovery of symmetry in physical science is key to any argument for universality. If phenomenon is symmetrical, then it is true regardless of the observer's point of view. In social science, questions of symmetry revolve (again) around natural boundaries. We speak of gender, culture, class, and race as examples such natural boundaries (or symmetries). Social science data that transcend those boundaries are more universal than data that are not. Often, (think of culture) we are unable to break out of the prison imposed by our asymmetrical view of the world, often leading to tragic results. (Assuming, for example, that American troops would be greeted as liberators.)

To conclude, considering initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions is important in social science theorizing. The real world often imposes those constraints. Failing to see them or to account for them can lead to deficient theorizing.

Nobel Advice from Baltimore

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported on David Baltimore's advice to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

He said that scientists should:

• Demand excellence
• Concentrate resources
• Create small environments
• Maintain the unity of teaching and research
• Make academic freedom crucial

Not following these rules, he said, will eventually pervert science and undermine economic growth.

In our book, we promote the unity of teaching and research and believe in creating small but realistic environments for our students to learn in. Naturally, we demand excellence too and believe in the importance of academic freedom. Concentrating resources has never been a problem for us, we have so little to start with.

Engineering: Past and Present

In chapter 1 we discuss engineering and its relationship to science. Below is a list of the 20th century's greatest engineering achievements from the National Academy of Engineering.

Great Engineering Achievements

1. Electrification
2. Automobile
3. Airplane
4. Water Supply and Distribution
5. Electronics
6. Radio and Television
7. Agricultural Mechanization
8. Computers
9. Telephone
10. Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
11. Highways
12. Spacecraft
13. Internet
14. Imaging
15. Household Appliances
16. Health Technologies
    
17. Petroleum and Petrochemical Technologies
18. Laser and Fiber Optics
19. Nuclear Technologies
20. High-performance Materials
    

Tomorrow's Challenges

1. Make solar energy economical
2. Provide energy from fusion
3. Develop carbon sequestration methods
4. Manage the nitrogen cycle
5. Provide access to clean water
6. Restore and improve urban infrastructure
7. Advance health informatics
8. Engineer better medicines
9. Reverse-engineer the brain
10. Prevent nuclear terror
11. Secure cyberspace
12. Enhance virtual reality
13. Advance personalized learning
14. Engineer the tools of scientific discovery

If after reading chapter 1 you are still wondering what we mean about the relationship of science and engineering, then look at the list and links above. Engineers have taken from science and provided many engineering solutions to human problems. However, there is much still to do.

Science as Entertainment?

Here's a new trend, scientists appearing at bars, taverns, and clubs to a paying audience. Wow.

We professors often grouse about having to entertain our students in class. Now, it turns out, there are people who want to hear scientists talk about their findings in a non-academic setting. Hmmm...I wonder what kinds of topics I could discuss in such a setting?

A few classic studies come to mind: bystander interference, mental rotation, and the decay of memory. I can see it now: One Night Only--Come Learn the Mysteries of the Mind and Behavior. Get you tickets before they sell out. Somehow, I don't think Hanna Montana will worry about me cutting into her ticket sales.

As you might imagine, the venues for such talks are mostly in large cities in the United States. Here's a New York Times article about this new phenomenon.

Instrumentation and Psychology

All science depends on instrumentation to some degree. As we note in chapter 1, Galileo used his telescope to discover data which he later incorporated into his theorizing. Another early pioneer was Robert Hooke. Like Galileo, he refined an instrument and then used it to discover new things. In Hooke's case the instrument was the microscope.

In 1665, Hooke published Micrographia, a book devoted to displaying many of the images he saw using his microscope. Hooke discovered and named cells and looked at ordinary, small objects under magnification for the first time. A recent article in TheScientist.com describes Hooke's research further and links to a display of 17th century microscopes.

In psychology too, instrumentation plays a big role, both historically and currently. The Web page, Brass Instrument Psychology, from the University of Toronto displays many instruments from early psychology in several categories: optical, auditory, and timing.

Another excellent source of historical instruments in psychology is The Archives of American Psychology at the University of Akron. The page displays a long list of categories that are linked to descriptions and pictures of the instruments.

Today, many of the devices used to measure behavior are computerized. Also, the Internet itself along with other networked devices (cell phones and pagers) are being used. Look up "psychological instruments" on Google and you will find mostly links to paper-and-paper "instruments" used to collect data.

Psychologists are well-embedded in one of science's oldest traditions, the use of instruments to reveal truths about the world.

Student Engagement and Undergraduate Research

Student engagement is an elusive concept. From a faculty member's point of view, student engagement might be that all-to-rare student who asks such incisive questions. From a student's point of view, engagement might be working on a big project, doing research, or studying overseas.

Doing those things, what Nessie calls the "high-impact" activities of which big student projects, studying overseas, and conducting research are examples, now have empirical support. (Other high-impact activities include living in learning communities or writing for the school newspaper.) "Nessie" or the National Survey of Student Engagement is an 8-year old survey administered by over 1000 colleges and universities to over 300,000 freshman and seniors. The entire 2007 Annual Report can be downloaded as a PDF file here.

In the latest Nessie, undergraduate research with faculty was an important factor in improving student engagement. More specifically, conducting an undergraduate thesis (based upon empirical data collection) improved critical thinking. Field research and placements were even more valuable. When students have to work in real situations, interact with others outside of the university, and for longer periods the beneficial effects of such close faculty-student interactions become greater.

Another group deeply involved in student engagement is the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU). They fund programs related to improving college education, broadly defined.

Obviously, we are big fans of undergraduate research with faculty. So, one way to improve your time in college is to seek out a sympathetic faculty member and work together on a research project.

Publish the Data

Science depends on planned data collection and its publication. Without publication many of the advantages of science disappear. So, it is shocking that NASA is refusing to publish the results of a major and expensive ($8.5M) telephone survey on airline safety.

The details of this story can be seen in this New York Times piece.

Over 8,000 pilots completed the survey which asked questions about safety issues during flights. Topics included the number of times birds struck airplanes and near-miss collisions (both on the ground and in the air). The survey was ordered in 1997 by a White House panel and was completed in 2005. Fearing that the data might be purged intentionally, Congress ordered that digital copies of the data be preserved.

NASA recently refused a Freedom of Information Act request to release the data from the Associated Press. The Associated Press responded, “Anxious to avoid upsetting air travelers, NASA is withholding results from an unprecedented national survey of pilots that found safety problems like near-collisions and runway interference occur more frequently than the government previously recognized.”

NASA maintained that release of the information would be detrimental to the public, the airlines, and to general aviation. They also said that the study was designed to investigate methods of collecting such data (i.e., a pilot study) not to collect data about safety.

As we point out in chapter 1, science depends on the honest publication of results. Researchers should not refuse to publish data. Many editorial columns are making the same argument. See Kansas City Star and The Boston Herald.

Types of Science

In chapter 1, we discuss science in some detail because we believe it is important for students to know where psychology fits within science itself and how its methods compare to other scientific disciplines.

Diana Rhoten's recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (The dawn of networked science, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Page B12) adds much to the story of how science has developed in the last 100 years.

She provides the following classification of science: bench-top science, big science, team science, and networked science.

Two good examples of bench-top science are Mendel's research on peas and Goddard's research on rocketry. Both were low-budget and conducted alone or in small groups.


Here's a picture I took at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC showing one of Goddard's early rockets (that's Robert Goddard in the background). He and his collaborators used to drive out to the country with their disassembled rockets in the back of a pickup truck. They would put the rockets together, shoot them off, and sometimes had to run from local farmers afterward.

After World War II, rocket science became a part of big science. The United States government captured many German V-2 rockets along with many scientists and began a major research project in rocketry. That research led to ICBMs and to manned spaceflight. If it costs a few million dollars or more, it's probably big science.

Big science not only costs lots of money, it also requires a top-down infrastructure. Rhoten notes research such as the Manhattan Project and the Hubble Space Telescope as examples of big science.

Team science, she says, "is often centered on researchers whose main ties are to the given intellectual challenge." (and not to a particular institution). An early and successful example of team science is the Human Genome project. In that research, scientists from many disciplines from laboratories all around the world collaborated to solve a particular problem. They did so ahead of schedule and under budget.

Networked science is emerging now thanks to advanced computer technologies and networks. New and virtual entities such as InnoCentive and the Biomedical Informatics Research Network offer opportunities for scientists everywhere to solve problems (and get paid for it). Rhoten cites the case of Edward Melcarek. He is a scientist who works on problems for InnoCentive. Click here for a Wired.com article on Melcarek.

Networked science may offer a mechanism to return to a model more similar to bench-top science than to big science.