2.3 Problem 8: Do we need Psychology?
Hochstein: Giving up on convergence & autonomy: why the theories of psychology and
neuroscience are codependent as well as irreconcilable
There has long been a debate in the philosophy of mind & philosophy of science about how
best to interpret the relationship between neuroscience & psychology. Both sides explain
cognitive behaviour but do so using different models & theories. Traditionally, 2 possibilities
have been given in which this relationship can be interpreted:
As psychology & neuroscience change over time, the different theories & models will
slowly co-evaluate until they eventually converge into one approach to cognitive
behaviour
Psychology & neuroscience will not merge but will continue in isolation from each
other. This is because the systems are characterized at different levels of
organization/mechanisms. As a result, the theories from psychology can never be
traced back to those of neuroscience
However, Hochstein believes that both of these possibilities are wrong. Instead, he argued
that advances in neuroscience & psychology are due to the fact that their theories are
incompatible in different ways. However, the theories & models of both schools of thought
are dependent on each other, they just will not merge. The fact that models & theories of
psychology are not useful for neuroscience & vice versa caused a number of philosophers to
incorrectly state that the 2 domains operate autonomously from each other. They argue that
the findings of one are not helpful to the other, but this is incorrect. Psychology &
neuroscience will not merge, but they also can’t exist separately from each other
Traditional characterisations of the psychological/neuroscientific divide
Convergence: both domains have the same goal – to find a correct theory for cognitive
behaviour. They differ in their approaches for achieving it:
Psychology uses a top-down approach; tries to understand cognitive behaviour by
identifying cognitive capacities, behavioural patterns and environmental factors, and
drawing conclusions about how the underlying neurological mechanisms in the
system would work
Neuroscience uses bottom-up approach; starts with studying neurological
mechanisms and on the basis of this, conclusions are drawn about general cognitive
behaviour
Both domains inform & limit each other directly. Knowing more about underlying
mechanisms of the system informs our understanding of how the system will behave.
This allows us to change & improve our psychological models // the more detailed our
psychological theories become regarding overall behaviour of the system, the more it
informs our understanding of what the neurological mechanisms are doing, thus puts
constraints on what their underlying architecture is
In this way, a process of mutual refinement takes place until finally one explanation
of cognitive behaviour is developed
Some psychological categories are so different from categories that would emerge
from convergence of psychology & neuroscience that they’re unlikely to make it
Hochstein: Giving up on convergence & autonomy: why the theories of psychology and
neuroscience are codependent as well as irreconcilable
There has long been a debate in the philosophy of mind & philosophy of science about how
best to interpret the relationship between neuroscience & psychology. Both sides explain
cognitive behaviour but do so using different models & theories. Traditionally, 2 possibilities
have been given in which this relationship can be interpreted:
As psychology & neuroscience change over time, the different theories & models will
slowly co-evaluate until they eventually converge into one approach to cognitive
behaviour
Psychology & neuroscience will not merge but will continue in isolation from each
other. This is because the systems are characterized at different levels of
organization/mechanisms. As a result, the theories from psychology can never be
traced back to those of neuroscience
However, Hochstein believes that both of these possibilities are wrong. Instead, he argued
that advances in neuroscience & psychology are due to the fact that their theories are
incompatible in different ways. However, the theories & models of both schools of thought
are dependent on each other, they just will not merge. The fact that models & theories of
psychology are not useful for neuroscience & vice versa caused a number of philosophers to
incorrectly state that the 2 domains operate autonomously from each other. They argue that
the findings of one are not helpful to the other, but this is incorrect. Psychology &
neuroscience will not merge, but they also can’t exist separately from each other
Traditional characterisations of the psychological/neuroscientific divide
Convergence: both domains have the same goal – to find a correct theory for cognitive
behaviour. They differ in their approaches for achieving it:
Psychology uses a top-down approach; tries to understand cognitive behaviour by
identifying cognitive capacities, behavioural patterns and environmental factors, and
drawing conclusions about how the underlying neurological mechanisms in the
system would work
Neuroscience uses bottom-up approach; starts with studying neurological
mechanisms and on the basis of this, conclusions are drawn about general cognitive
behaviour
Both domains inform & limit each other directly. Knowing more about underlying
mechanisms of the system informs our understanding of how the system will behave.
This allows us to change & improve our psychological models // the more detailed our
psychological theories become regarding overall behaviour of the system, the more it
informs our understanding of what the neurological mechanisms are doing, thus puts
constraints on what their underlying architecture is
In this way, a process of mutual refinement takes place until finally one explanation
of cognitive behaviour is developed
Some psychological categories are so different from categories that would emerge
from convergence of psychology & neuroscience that they’re unlikely to make it
