Subjective science: Kenneth Spence's human learning research program.

Abstract

This article examines Kenneth Spence's human learning research from 1949 to 1967. His works show the conditioning field to be in turmoil over basic issues during this time. These issues included whether determinism should be accepted, how to interpret a psychological test score, what psychometric properties a test should have, and how to use theoretical constructs. Turmoil occurred because behaviors and events had different meanings and degrees of importance to different investigators. Thus, what appeared as "objective" scientific change in the conditioning field was really the adaptation of personal preferences in word meanings, research goals, and research methods. These issues also indicate disputes about definitions and purposes of scientific activity during Spence's era.

Subjective science and natural science.

“…B. Wiseman's (2000) claim that Kenneth Spence's human learning research program is an example of a subjective science derives from his misconception of the role of subjectivity in natural-science methodology. Natural science is suffused with subjective ideas, but the major consideration is not their subjectivity but whether they are designed to meet the objective standards of natural-science epistemology or some vague knowledge base that has no predictive validity.…”

“… D. B. Wiseman’s (2000) claim that Kenneth Spence’s human learning research program is an example of a subjective science derives from his misconception of the role of subjectivity in natural-science methodology.…”

“…Wiseman’s (2000) review of Kenneth Spence’s human learning program suffers from ambiguity and, more importantly, from a confusion about the roles of subjectivity (intrasubjectivity) and objectivity (intersubjectivity) in natural-science methodology. The ambiguity stems from Wiseman’s use of my subjective definition of science that I had rejected, thus encouraging the false impression that we shared a common conception of science.…”

“…However, that notion depends on how one defines what science is and how it should be conducted. (Wiseman, 2000, p. 278)…”

Two portraits of Spence.

“…A response to H. H. Kendler’s (2001) comments on D. B. Wiseman’s (2000) original article about Kenneth Spence’s human learning research is presented.…”