Being a Psychology major as well as leadership, I found it incredibly difficult to read many of these articles, particularly Anderson’s “Marketing Scientific Progress and Scientific Method” with out having a pretty biased opinion. In the psychology world if you created an opinion “ad-hoc” or after the experiment is already finished, it cannot actually be called an experiment. For an experiment, at least in the psychological field, a hypothesis must be created apriori, or before the tests are run. In Anderson’s paper when he was comparing logical empiricism to falsification I couldn’t help but close my mind off to logical empiricism I have been told so many times that a theory can never be proven, it can only be dis-proven or failed to be dis-proven, other wise known as the falsification, that it is hard to see how others could accept it. It is like the paradigm problem Anderson was explaining. So many scientists have their minds set that they are not open to new ideas. Is that what is happening to us when we decide to specialize in one area? Do we end up closing off the other methods of finding answers? And on a broader level have we closed off our minds to understanding other ways of life to an extent?
Albeit that is a bit extreme, but it is easy to see in a non scientific way that we all have paradigms and stereotypes about people around us based on our own personal experiences. Through our lives we have been institutionalized and been molded to think a certain way aspire to fill certain roles. In America that role is to be as competitive as possible and climb up the ladder of success. In non westernized societies however, it is easy to look down upon the roles that are customary to them. We don’t deny they are there but we think they are not modern, or unfair, just as I couldn’t help but think that logical empiricism seemed not modern. It is a reminder that we must check our judgments before we understand the history behind the idea.