Re: [Fwd: Re: constructs, science and religion]

Ana Catina (catina@Psyres-Stuttgart.DE)
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 13:09:14 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear Gary,
I am afraid that I shall say something quite uninteresting in comparison
with all other discussants. I turned around your question, ie moved the
focus from the meaning of the construct "science vs religion" and tried
instead to allocate the event you are trying to define: the PCP, or
kelly`s theory. Well, it emerged from a rich clinical experience, could
you accept it as empirical observation? Kelly was an expert in more than
one clinical theories on personality and lived in a time bubbling of
theoretical proecupations in the psychology of personality. he summarised
in fact what he and his students considered to mirror their clinical
observations: they meant that if one construes the man in the way they did
a whole system of theoretical and practical implications would emerge,
implications that, according to their experience, increased the chance of
improving client`s psychological condition. Full stop.
He suggested his alternative of defining the personality in the form of a
theory. He organised this theory in the form of a postulate and 11
corollaries, suplying the followers a scheme according to which the
pesronality structure, its way of functionig, comunicating, changing
could be alternatively understood. Fair enough, he suggested a method also
(how many
other theoreticians did the same?) inviting the followers to test his
assumptions. Those taking serious Kelly`s chanllange, tried already to
prove his assumptions (Fransella, Bannister, Bonnarius, Riemann, Landfield
and his students just to name a few of them). They attempted to
demonstrate that Kelly`s theory is true to life. Some of them enriched
it, some of them argued against some certain points.
It is up to you if your theoretical credo would be more religion-like. If
you take whatever Kelly or God knows who else said for granted without
checking if it reflect the reality you are abtracting, you will
never know if what you believe to be true is also valid. Not asking us is
the answer; a large part of us did reserach along the theory and with the
method. Read what your fellows have done; if you think that it was not
enough for speaking about a scientifically plausible theory, you have
your chance to disconfirm it by doing your own research.

You keep saying that you are on the wrong list: people ar not enough
constructivist, positivist, postmodernist, antesomthingist (new
category!) etc. I remember being said (on this list) that the question
had been put to purist Kellians (so, I was not enough Kellian in my
contribution). Why are people so bothered by being or not being something?

Dr.Phil. Ana Catina
Center for Psychotherapy Research
Christian Belser Str. 79a
70597 Stuttgart

Fax number. *49 711 687 6902
Phone 49 711 6781 411