bluefireroses
Posts: 37
Joined: 8/22/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lemmebeYourMine When did generalizability become a word? Frued based his ideas on single person case studies... Hmmmmmmm, thinks not. However you bring up a point toward all of psychology not being a very good, or an very true *accurate* science. Data you see, should be repeatable under the same circumstances, time and time again. Otherwise bluefireroses, it has no value. And that is what most of us have said. The research is not substantial. Also in regard to frued, Are you trying to say he came up with the concept and idea of penis envy from listening to and studying the thoughts or behaviors of ONE single woman, and not a group of them? Also are you saying science in general and psychology specifically haven't and need not evolve since the time of Frued? Weird. Lemmebe. A. When I used it. Whatever it got the point across. B. While I could go into details about case studies, experiements etc this forum is neither the time nor the place. From your 'definition' of what Data should be, then no science is a *true* science...because there is no way in which you can get all the variables to be exactly the same. Science has evolved- yes, but there are certain times where going back to a case study is needed especially when ethical guidelines would limit the ability to do an experiement. Pilot studies and new treatment studies are also studies where a case study might be the best option until the need for further testing arises. Contrary to your belief Frued did a series of case studies, which is what they appear to have done in this study. You seemed to have missed my most basic point- whether their findings are correct or not, this study needs to be taken further---to a larger sample size, a longer amount of time etc before we condone or condemn what they did.
|