Writing on crises and dogmas causes agreements. And disagreements

Abstract

The study Psicología en crisis. Metodología dogmática. Encuentros y desencuentros (Psychology in crisis. Dogmatic methodology. Agreements and disagreements) has stimulated intense debate in which the questions raised by participants have taken the analysis far beyond the area the author has tried to clarify and expand on the critical discourse proposed, recalling Habermas’ classical distinction between the systems of rational purposive action and communicative action which offers new insights into the oppositions between social and natural sciences and or between academic and professional psychologies, and clarifies the sense in which the existence of a crisis is defended. The author explains why he considers Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions as inadequate and disturbing and proposes normative naturalism as an alternative framework for today’s discussions on methodology. Finally, he emphasizes the need for methodological thinking and for a clarification of concepts and roles inside psychological research.