Külpe, Bühler, Popper
JOHN
WETTERSTEN
One important way of appraising a
thinker’s contributions is to pose the questions, what problems did he solve?
and what new problems did he uncover? Such an appraisal does not require that
final or correct solutions be identified. Rather, one may seek to describe the
dialectic through which views developed. This dialectic may lead to current
outstanding problems rather than to current acceptable solutions. Such an
appraisal should describe those problems, solutions and criticisms which have
been interesting and powerful even while leaving open the possibility of
various responses to them.
Such an
approach may he especially valuable when faced with views which seem quite
important - whether they are true or not is not an issue here - whose origins
are doubtful or when there are significant appearing views whose influence
seems doubtful. Such appearances may be due to the nature of the influence or
origins in problems rather than in theories passed from one thinker to another.
When both problems may be solved at once, when the influence of one view may be
explained by an analysis of the origins of another view we may expect a bonus.
This possibility exists in the case of the Wurzburg school on the one hand
whose influence seems diffuse and uncertain even though it must be granted a
certain importance in the history of psychology at least and in the case of the
philosophy of science of Karl Popper on the other hand whose origins seem
obscure. The explanation of the dialectic within the Würzburg school and that
between psychology and the philosophy of science may partially solve both the
problems of the influence of the Wurzburg school and of the origins of Popper’s
views.
Although
the Wurzburg school is granted a definite place in histories of psychology and
the philosophy of science of Oswald Kulpe has been given some, albeit slight,
attention, the work of this school has not been deemed to have had decisive
influence in either psychology or philosophy. The theories of this school seem
not to have survived. Kulpe himself, the leader of the school, has a firm
albeit somewhat small place in the history of psychology. His psychology is
deemed to be of sufficient importance to be a standard part of the history of
the subject. The influence of this psychology is lost in the general changes
brought about by gestalt psychology and later of cognitive psychology whose
relations to the Wurzburg school remain somewhat obscure. This modest
recognition of the importance of Kulpe’s psychology is combined with a far
greater even if not complete neglect of his philosophy of science. This
philosophy of science which was posthumously published under the title Die Realisierung was intended to be
Kulpe’s major contribution, the culmination of his work in psychology and the
philosophy of science.
There are
quite accidental as well as intellectual reasons why this work has been
neglected. Kulpe died unexpectedly and still at the rather young age of
fifty-three. He died during the First World War and only one of the planned
four volumes of his magnum opus had been published. The final version was never
properly completed, has a pedantic style and hardly give the impression of
containing important ideas. The dispersion and death of those thinkers most
closely associated with the Wurzburg school due to fascism in Germany speeded
the demise of the direct influence of the school if it was not wholly the cause
of it. The two most prominent figures were Otto Selz and Karl Buhler. Selz was
murdered by the Nazis and Buhler emigrated to America where he never achieved
the status or influence that he once had in Vienna. Renewed interest in Bühler
and especially his studies in language is evident in the publication of this
book. The role he has played in the continuation of the work of the Wurzburg
school is also deserving of interest.
After
considerable difficulties in gaining recognition, difficulties which were also
in part due to fascism in Europe, Karl Popper gained acceptance as one of the
leading philosophers of science of the 20th century. His philosophy has,
however, quite vague roots. Although he first developed his views in Vienna he
gained recognition only on the publication of the translation of his major
work, Logik der Forschung, in
English. The immediate roots of this philosophy of science was the psychology
of the Wurzburg school, especially the psychologies of Selz and Bühler. This
background was long forgotten but is now more clearly apparent. The publication
of Popper’s first attempt in the philosophy of science, Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenninistheorie, reveals quite
clearly the beginning of Popper’s studies in psychology.
The analyses of this development
have made headway but are not yet sufficient. Popper’s own account of his development
is somewhat disappointing. He provides a very sparse view of his own
development presenting his own problem and basic idea without reference to the
background in psychology and philosophy of science of the period. A broad
analysis is contained in Lernen aus dem
Irrtum by William Berkson and myself but a specific analysis of the
problems which grew out of the work of the Wurzburg school and which gave
Popper his impetus and stage has not been achieved. It is thus appropriate to
here analyse how Popper’s views grew out of his work with Bühler and how more
generally this work may be seen to be a result of problems which the Wurzburg
school discovered. This analysis may give Popper’s view roots and the influence
of the Würzburg school, of Kulpe and of Bühler given due recognition in the
philosophy of science.
1. Kulpe’s
Critique
There were
three interconnected doctrines in psychology which Külpe fought. In so doing he
fully changed the problem situation in psychology and the philosophy of
science. He himself developed new research programs in both psychology and the
philosophy of science and tried to begin the work on them. He met with serious
difficulties but one could not go back to the old: new responses to Kulpe’s
work were needed.
Two of the
three interconnected doctrines which Kulpe fought had been established since
Helmholtz at least. The first was that all psychological phenomena are built
up out of the elements of sensations and/or simple feeling. This doctrine has
an epistemological corollary that all knowledge is obtained by induction from
sensations. Historically it goes the other way: the epistemology was the basis
for the development of the psychology. The second doctrine was that no life
force or soul could be allowed into science. This prohibition was universally
deemed a consequence of Helmholtz’s paper on the conservation of force. The
third doctrine was new. It was the philosophy of science of Wundt and Mach.
According to this doctrine science had merely to establish functional relationships
between sensations. One purpose this doctrine fulfilled was to render
scientific psychology possible. It allowed for a psychology without the
metaphysical assumptions of a soul or a life force - thus remaining within the
bounds set by Helmholtz’s principle of the conservation of force - and it
provided for reduction -thus providing a methodological interpretation and
justification for the reductionist psychology of the time. All three doctrines
are intimately connected and Kulpe attacked all at once, as he had to, to
develop his own non-reductionist conceptions in psychology, metaphysics and the
philosophy of science.
.
1.1 The Reduction of Psychological Processes to
Sensations
The most
important assumption of the established program in psychology was that all
psychological processes should be shown to be built up out of sensations and/or
simple feelings. Sensations received more attention than feelings, in part
because this part of the program seemed both more fundamental and easier to
carry out. The assumption of the reducibility of some so-called higher thought
processes such as thinking or willing to mere combinations of sensations was
Kulpe’s main target in psychology. The importance of his criticism was not that
it overthrew simply one doctrine in psychology. Rather it overthrew the
dominant programs. On these programs the tasks and methods of psychology were
determined by the quest for reductions to sensation.
There were
at least two modes of attack on the doctrine of the reducibility of (some)
higher thought processes to mere combinations of sensations. The first was to
show that there are elements of sensation which never come to consciousness.
The consequence of this demonstration was that psychological processes were
selective and not merely a product of associations, even predetermined
associations. The second mode of attack was to show that there were
psychological processes which did not have the quality of sensations, of
pictures, and which could not, therefore, be built up out of sensations. These
processes did not have the qualities they must have in order to be reducible to
sensations and their combinations.
The first
criticism was developed through simple experiments which showed that sensations
which must have been received did become conscious. An experiment was
conducted by showing a subject a set of symbols consisting of letters with
different colors in various forms for short periods of time. The task given the
subject could vary. One time he would be asked to notice the letters, another
time the colors or the shapes of the letters together. One purpose of the
experiment was to determine if the characteristics which were not included in
some given task would also be noted. They were to varying degrees. The
variances depended on the task given and on the type of characteristics which
were not part of the given task. Those which were not noted were apparently
never brought to consciousness. The subjects had no recollection of them. Kulpe
believed that the hypothesis that they were forgotten could be excluded. The
result was, according to Kulpe, that there was a psychological reality which
was distinguishable from consciousness. The reception of the sensations which
were not noticed would be perhaps part of non-conscious psychological process.
This
distinction between non-conscious psychological processes and conscious ones
such as those due to attention was central for Külpe’s psychology but it opened
up problems for him which he could not solve. He needed to explain the difference
between one psychological reality and another, that of consciousness or
attention. This central problem was not solved. The distinction however left
open the possibility of the study of both sides as separate processes. This
dualistic approach was crucial for the work of Kulpe and that of his students.
The demonstration of psychological processes which were both more and less than
the mere combination of sensations - more because they were selective and
organising and less because some sensations played no role - removed the
rationale for the traditional program by refuting the hypothesis of the
continuity of psychological processes from simple to complex.
The second
criticism of the reductionist hypothesis was that higher thought processes
which were purported to be built up out of sensations and their combinations
did not have the qualities they must have to be so constituted. This criticism
is traditionally deemed the most important. Kulpe presumed that if the higher
thought processes were mere combinations of sensations they would have to have
the quality of pictures. This did not, of course, mean that these “pictures”
had to correspond to the world. Helmholtz maintained the reductionist theory
but deemed sensations to be mere signs. The sensations that arose under the
same physical-physiological conditions would have the same characteristics but
these characteristics need not correspond to those characteristics of the world
which functioned as their stimuli. The higher thought processes, theories or ideas
have a firm basis in that they are built up by induction but we have no way of
knowing if they directly correspond to the world. In order to refute the
reductionist theory, then, it appeared merely necessary to study the quality of
the higher thought processes, to see if they were accompanied by pictures or
not.
The
traditional method of studying the higher thought processes was to begin with
simple processes and then to explain how the higher thought processes could be
built up out of these simple ones. The simple processes were deemed the
simplest to study and to be the foundation of all others. If one sought
reduction it was certainly appropriate. If one, however, wished to answer the
question of what the content of thought processes is, whether sensations or
something else, a different approach was needed. The work at the borderline of
thinking and picturing might even serve to confuse things. Külpe proposed,
then, that the higher thought processes should be studied directly to determine
whether their content essentially involved picturing.
Although
Kulpe was the leading thinker behind such efforts the main work was carried out
by his students. As is well known such thinkers as Narziss Ach, Karl Marbe and
August Messer played important roles in Wurzburg. I wish here, however, to
mention Karl Buhler’s work in his Wurzburg years, “Tatsachen und Probleme zu
einer Psychologie der Denkvorgange.”. This essay was also of some importance,
it drew immediate criticism from Kulpe’s former teacher Wundt and it is of
interest here since it is Buhler’s role that is crucial in the connections I
wish to establish. The method which Bühler applied was quite simple and
characteristic of the Wurzburg school. He posed questions which required some
thought, such as to understand the meaning of a paradoxical sounding aphorism.
After the subject had completed the task he would be asked to describe the
thought process by which he came to the solution of the problem or to the
completion of the task. He sought to determine in a manner typical of the
Würzburg school the content of the thinking or the experience which constituted
or accompanied it. Whatever weaknesses there may have been in the description
of the content and the interpretation of thinking the negative result, that in
thinking picturing was a quite accidental phenomena which could accompany
thinking but which for the most part did not, seemed clear. This negative
result or refutation of the traditional program was the basis for the new,
which I will turn to below.
1.2 The
Metaphysics of Science and the Conservation of Force
The
reductionism of scientific psychology was not based merely on the perceived
needs of inductivist epistemology and methodology. It was also based on
metaphysical grounds. In the early 19th century the challenge of idealistic
theories, of Naturphilosophie, of William Whewell’s Kantian theory of science
and of theories of life force as the proper subject matter for the science of
physiology as well as Faraday’s non-Newtonian speculations caused a reaction.
The inroads of non-scientific metaphysics and speculation seemed to threaten
the empirical foundation of science. The excesses of Schelling and Hegel were
taken to be the prime threats but other more moderate views such as that of
Johannes Muller made the problem even sharper. For, even though it was clear
that metaphysical excesses were to be avoided, the bounds of proper science
were not clear.
Hermann
Helmholtz was one of the leaders in the fight against the excesses. His
inductivism in methodology and psychology, with to be sure minor concessions to
Kant, was important but not deemed sufficient. He sought a more direct
statement in regard to metaphysics and especially in regard to the theory of
the proper subject matter of physiology of his teacher Johannes Muller. For,
according to Muller a life force which required different laws for the
description of living beings than that appropriate for non-living entities was
to be studied in physiology. This life force seemed to come and go with life
and death and to upset the normal laws of chemistry and physics. Helmholtz
sought to devise a specific response. His answer was his famous essay on the
conservation of force.
Helmholtz’s
essay and the principle - one should say principles - of the conservation of
force have played important roles in a wide range of fields. The importance of
Helmholtz’s essay in physiology was almost immediate. Any research which one
might justifiably deem scientific could not stand in conflict with this
principle, that is, with the principle that force could be transformed but
neither created nor destroyed. There are various problems in saying exactly
what such conformance required. Helmholtz had intended, however, that his essay
be interpreted as proof that the postulate of a life force violated the
principles of science, that all physiological explanations should be mere
extensions of physical and chemical explanations and not the study of separate
entities which obey !heir own laws. I will not discuss here the problems of the
interpretations of Helmholtz’s principle which is presented as proven, which
seems quite metaphysical, which is offered as a methodological rule and which
seems ambivalent between Newton and Faraday. The proper mode of explanation in
physiology was deemed the same as in physical science as, for example, the
attempt of du Bois Reymond to explain phenomena of life through the study of
animal electricity.
The
attempt to conform to this principle in psychology was above all carried
through by building psychology on physiology, as a mere continuation of it.
This seemed to require a metaphysical interpretation of psychological phenomena
as merely physical. This view seemed to some however to be too strong. But what
alternative could there be? One possibility was developed by Mach and accepted
by Wundt. If both physics and psychology studied the functional relations
between sensations, then the two fields could be continuous, a metaphysical
monism was possible and yet one could have a scientific psychology by allowing
different functional relationships between sensations. One set of relations
would be the subject matter of psychology and another set would be the subject
matter of physical science.
Kulpe
required a still further alternative. He wanted to study the higher thought
processes as real and independent. Neither the reduction of these processes to
sensations, that is to ideas, nor that to physical processes was adequate for
his program. He wished to allow for the existence of a real stuff out of which
the psychological processes were constituted. He did not want to say what this
was, for he sought to find a way to make metaphysics scientific. He sought to
avoid the path of Schelling and Hegel, to stay within the bounds of the
principle of the conservation of force and to allow for metaphysical dualism or
the existence of a soul or life force. He had to show that dualism did not
violate the principle of the conservation of force.
His
argument is quite simple. The principle of the conservation of force requires
that in any transformation the amount of force be neither increased or
decreased. This principle does not, however, require that there be any specific
number of forces or possible transformations. It merely requires that lawlike
relations exist when one transforms one form of force into another, that such
transformations preserve the quantity of force even without specifying what
such quantities are or how they are to be measured. This principle thus allows
for the existence of a psychological force and its incorporation into science.
It does not prove its existence. That is a problem for science.
1.3 Methodology
Kulpe’s realism led him into conflict with the methodological view of
Wundt and Mach as well. According to this theory the aim of science was merely
to establish functional relationships between sensations. This view has a
rationale according to Kulpe in that the traditional Spinozistic view of
causation according to which causality and logical consequence could be reduced
to each other needed to be abandoned. This had, however, already been done in
science since Galileo. The new theory provided by Wundt and Mach went too far.
It allowed for merely functional relationships; a realistic science demanded
more. It demanded that the dependence relations be established. Kulpe thus
deemed a stronger view of causality to be necessary which in turn was based on
and required realism, which in conjunction with a non-reductionistic view of
the study of the higher psychological processes required a new metaphysic,
which was to be developed in scientific psychology How this new realistic
psychology was to be developed was the subject of his two programs in
psychology and methodology.
2. Kulpe’s Programs in Psychology and
Methodology
Kulpe’s critique of the methods and interpretations of scientific
psychology led to two tasks. The first was to develop a program for the direct
study of the higher thought processes. The direct study of these processes
should uncover their properties, properties not reducible to mere combinations
of simpler elements. The second task was to develop a new interpretation of
scientific psychology which allowed for the separate substance or entity out of
which these processes were constituted. Kulpe required a theory of method which
explained how scientists could determine the existence of various substances.
The problems of metaphysics should be actively pursued, leaving open various
possibilities but leading to scientific resolutions. His goal was to establish
a science of the higher thought processes which would explain these processes
as law-like and at the same time identify the substance, a soul or independent
psychological entity out of which they were constituted. His most ambitious
work, then, was preparatory: he wanted to show the way to this goal by showing
how it was possible to attain it and what methods should be used to pursue it.
2.1 Kulpe’s Program in Psychology
The main feature of Kulpe’s program in psychology was the use of
introspection to directly study the higher thought processes. Introspection
was, of course, not new and it was even a rather suspect method. For introspection
could very easily be subjective and uncertain and its results hard to
interpret. Kulpe’s greatest problem, then, was to show that his method could be
scientific in its applications to higher thought processes and that it could
lead to the desired progress. The study of the higher thought processes should
lead both to the discovery of their properties and to the knowledge of the
realities which lay behind them.
In pursuit of these goals Kulpe followed quite traditional lines. He
sought to show that the method of introspection could be used in controlled
ways with firm results. He was interested in, for example, securing that the
reports of introspection were reliable, that they did not hinge on poor memory
or other extraneous factors. The work of Karl Buhler which was discussed above
is an example of the attempts to usefully apply and secure the introspective
method; the attack of Wundt offers an example of the sort of opposition he
faced.
Kulpe sought to encourage these developments by reviews of literature on
the psychological study of aesthetic and of attention. He also indicated the
types of study he thought would be appropriate to further these programs.
These studies were above all those which would more closely identify the
properties of particular psychological processes. One should, for example,
study more closely the duration of attention of those activities which required
attention. These results should prepare the way for further progress. His
recommendations were rather inductivist: rather than put forth a theory he
wished to gather more detailed experimental results.
The development of the program had two important aspects. One, the use
of the research to refute the then dominant modes of doing psychological
research, has already been discussed and represents Kulpe’s greatest success.
He wanted much more than this however. He wanted to develop a new description and
explanation of the higher thought processes. He wanted to identify the reality
behind the phenomena in order to render the metaphysics of psychology
scientific. Even the more successful of the positive descriptions of the
higher thought processes which came out of Kulpe’s school left this program
unfullfilled.
The theories that were put forth came from his students. They provided
new ways of describing thought processes. They identified some properties of
thought such as predisposing tendencies and problem solving which became
important parts of the literature. But they did not achieve the aimed for
realistic interpretation. On the one hand they seemed too narrow in that they
merely dealt with the experience of these thought processes as revealed through
introspection. On the other hand they seemed to logicise psychology; Selz’s
work seemed vulnerable to this charge. There seemed to be experience on the one
hand and thought on the other but no psychological reality which formed the
basis for Kulpe’s science of psychology. They thus left the program incomplete
and raised difficult problems as to how the results should be interpreted.
2.2 Kulpe’s Program in Methodology
Kulpe’s program in methodology was to explain in general terms how the
sort of program he wished to carry out in psychology was in fact carried out in
the existing sciences and, therefore, how and why it could be carried out in
psychology. He sought to show the necessity and the possibility of a realistic
science as well as to give specific proposals about how it could be attained.
The demonstration of its necessity was carried through by showing that neither
of two leading alternatives were adequate to account for science. These
alternatives were idealistic theories of science such as that of the Marburg
school - the new Kantians - and theories which deemed science to be merely the
study of sensations and their relations such as Mach. The demonstration of the
possibility of a realistic science was carried through by showing that
objections to a realistic science, that is, arguments purporting to show that
such a science could not be obtained were not conclusive. Both exercises were
part of his critique of opposing views and do not concern us here.
The demonstration of how a realistic science was possible was the pinnacle
of his work or rather, it should have been. His work on this aspect of his
program was never properly completed. It is found in the last book of Die Realisierung. The manuscript was
published posthumously and shows terrible deficiencies. Kulpe’s basic plan was
to show how various methods could be used to correctly infer the nature of the
realities underlying the phenomena to be found in any field. In general his
procedure is to start by identifying connections between the phenomena which
are based in some real connection, to infer, that is, to conjecture what may be
behind these phenomena, to test such conjectures and to make inferences from
those which seem proven, thereby expanding knowledge of reality. In this way
one may approach the truth and make metaphysics scientific.
Kulpe’s basic idea is powerful. This idea is that science gains knowledge
of realities by constructing theories of those types of realities which can
explain the phenomena and by testing the consequences of such constructions.
It is based in his psychology in that the ideas of these realities are not mere
combinations of sensations, not mere pictures. It offers an alternative to the
then dominant views by deeming scientific theories not mere rational constructions,
as the new Kantians did, not mere associations of sensations. They were
testable conjectures about realities. Even further Kulpe had specific ideas
about how this process could function. Yet his theory proved weak.
The development of Kulpe’s idea, even apart from the problems which
arise due to the poor manuscript, left a great deal to be desired. He wished to
write a Prolegomena to any metaphysic that should appear as a science. This led
him to an inductive approach in spite of the obvious deductivist tendency of
his research. He saw on the one hand that as a consequence of his own
psychological theories scientific theories could not be directly infered from
phenomena but had to be constructed and deductions from them made. But on the
other hand he wished to build up a realistic science on firm results. He wished
to first determine the phenomena based on underlying realities. Each step had
to be conjectural and he saw that science could never be complete. But this
conjectural nature of each move and his desire to have each step secure leads
to a tension in his theory. Kulpe sought a new methodology which incorporated
metaphysical conjectures, which made them scientific But his theory of how such
conjectures could be developed remained inadequate. Kulpe wanted to avoid grand
theories in order to be scientific and to include theories of realities to be
realistic: but how can one make conjectures about realities which are strong
enough without deeper and broader theories?
3. Bühler’s Response
The inadequacies of the results achieved through the development of
Kulpe’s programs formed the basis for the most important of Buhler’s problems.
Kulpe’s
positive psychological theory or the theories of Wurzburg school - Buhler’s
included - provided descriptions of
some thought processes but offered no complete theory of thinking and failed to
provide a realistic psychology or theory of soul, thereby opening acute
problems of interpretation of their results. The results which Kulpe achieved
in his methodology thus very likely seemed not only inadequate in themselves
but also inadequate for guidance in the conduct of scientific psychology.
Bühler
faced the problems of expanding the range of the methods of psychology, of
integrating the already achieved albeit partial results of the Wurzburg school
and of finding a new approach to scientific psychology, an approach which might
render it scientific but which did not require the quest for a psychological
reality, a soul. There were three major attempts to offer a new systematization
of psychology - or part of it - which attacked these problems. The first was
his study of child psychology which proposed both an extended study of higher
thought processes through a study of their development as well as an integration
of these processes with others. The second was Die Krise der Psychologie which proposed an integration of various
approaches even while preserving the results of each. The last was his theory
of speech which extended the study of higher thought processes perhaps even
beyond the realm of psychology while systematizing various aspects. Buhler’s
quest for system and integration can be seen as an attempt to offer a needed
alternative to Kulpe’s methodology, to extend the methods of the Würzburg
school even while integrating much of their psychological and methodological
results within his systematic approach.
Buhler’s major early work, Die
geistige Entwicklung des Kindes, was published shortly after his
collaboration with Kulpe ended due to Kulpe’s death. It continues the work of the Wurzburg school in that it is
non-reductionist. He distinguished three aspects of psychological activity:
instinct, training and intellect. They are not reducible one to the other but
develop along side each other. They must be studied together and separately to
understand their unique roles and development on the one hand and their
interaction to produce human psychology on the other hand. His book is a
program for this study. For, he sets out the major types of activity to be studied
as separate aspects, reviewing the state of the art while adding his own
suggestions. The result would then be a systematic study of the development of
the whole child or the whole human psychological apparatus.
This is
not a traditional view. It breaks the tradition by not viewing this development
as a unified constructive process of more complex phenomena out of simple ones.
This break seems, indeed, to be the implicit rationale for the book. If the
development of all thought processes were constructive, from simple to complex,
there would be no need for a special study of their development. The
development of the higher thought processes in the child would have to follow
the pattern of construction of these thought processes which could be discovered
by the traditional methods of analysis or reduction.
Although the plan of integrating the various psychological processes and
of studying them separately is quite in accord with the program of the Wurzburg
school and the study of the psychological development of the child may be
deemed, as just explained, an outgrowth of the presuppositions of this school,
Bühler already in this book breaks with Külpe in his methodological approach.
Kulpe had always valued system. He viewed one of the major tasks of philosophy
to be the construction of a world view and this view should be based in
science, as, for example, Fechner had unsuccessfully tried to do. He wanted,
however, to build system on empirical research: he did not wish to begin with
system but sought the realities piecemeal first. Buhler went back to a more
systematic approach. He sought to propose a systematic framework and then to
develop it. The book is highly programmatic. It presents psychology as
non-reductionistic and in a systematic way. Bühler thereby avoided Kulpe’s
difficult problem of the soul, extended psychological methods and offered a new
methodological approach.
Buhler’s attempt to unify various aspects of psychology continued in his
Die Krise der Psychologie. If
psychology were to overcome the crisis exemplified by its disunity it would
have to recognise the results of various approaches, American as well as
European, and it would have to unify them. This could be accomplished, he
thought, if the various schools should be deemed to be engaged in the study of
various aspects of psychology. The study of these aspects could then be
combined in one scientific psychology.
He presents here a new three-fold division which plays a similar role to
the three fold division in the earlier work. He distinguishes between experience,
behavior and what we might nowadays call cognitive psychology which, he
thought, could and should be unified to produce a complete psychology and to
overcome the crisis of the existence of competing schools, each contending their
own particular methods or favored aspects were adequate to the whole. This plea
for unity was, however, in effect a plea for the Würzburg school. For, so long
as the various aspects of psychology were to be studied separately and then
integrated, so long as no reduction was to be attained, the point of view of
the Wurzburg school, or at least of their most stunning results would have had
to have been accepted, that is, the higher thought processes would be studied
independently and directly. Perhaps there was a moment, as Bühler had the
opportunity to take a position at Harvard, when this view could have gained in
influence. From Harvard he could have had influence in Europe and America and
the effects of fascism in Europe would not have been so disastrous for him. It
did not happen however. And, as well known, his later position in America was
not happy.
Buhler’s third attempt to develop a system is found in his theory of language.
This attempt is broader in that it extends his study of language beyond mere
psychological aspects of speech and yet narrower in that it does not include
all of psychology. It broadens the psychological study of language and includes
studies of properties of language which are not psychological but social and
even epistemological. This study is even more explicit in its systematic
approach and in its development of new and broader methods. It remains as well
as the others in quite important respects within the bounds of the Wurzburg
school.
The systematic approach is here more explicit in that Buhler attempts to
put his theory axiomatically. He apparently seeks here to incorporate the new
methods or the new logic of David Hilbert. The Wurzburg school, that is to say
Kulpe, had indeed ignored the new logic; its incorporation into the studies of
this school was needed. Bühler’s approach is, however, quite superficial. He
develops no theory of this approach and his own axiomatics cannot be taken too
seriously. He presents his basic ideas as “axioms”. But they are not even stated
properly as axioms. They do not play the role of being those propositions from
which all other parts of the theory should be deduced. Rather they are basic
presumptions which set the stage for what follows. Buhler’s systematic approach
is also here somewhat programmatic.
The problems which Bühler deals with in his studies of language are by
no means dependent on his “axiomatic” approach. The most important of these
problems include those which come out of the Wurzburg school even if all of
them may not have this source. The style or approach which Bühler follows in
attempting to solve them comes from this background as well. No appraisal of
the success of Buhler’s studies in language will be attempted here. Rather the
influence of the Wurzburg school as a source of problems and approach will be
illustrated in order to explain how Buhler’s work sets the stage for Popper’s
research, that is, how the problems of the Wurzburg school reappear for Popper
in Buhler’s work.
There is one central problem which permeates Bühler’s work and which
determines his style; both come out the Würzburg point of view. The problem is
how the higher thought processes, the human apparatus of perception and
thinking enables men to (correctly) perceive or describe the world. Bühler maintains
the view that the higher operations or functions are not constructed out of the
lower, they are found in humans, yet they enable men to communicate, to
describe and to perceive the world. In his speech theory he discusses the
success of pointing or indication of directions etc. as a function of fields.
Still further he discusses naming as successful through the operation of a
symbol field. The details of these theories and their relative success or
failure are not of concern here. The problem of explaining the nature and role
of “higher” processes is. For, in each case Bushier presumes the dualism of
context and element, seeks to study the context in psychology or speech and to
explain how they function. This is a natural continuation of Kulpe’s study in
abstraction discussed above which proposes the field or context and element
pattern of study.
The
subtitle of Bühler’s Sprachtheorie, that
is, Die Darstellungsfunktion der
Sprache, indicates further the interest Buhler has in the problem of how
language can be used to describe the world. This is also a development of
Kulpe’s approach. For Kulpe’s psychology and his theory of knowledge required
that the inbuilt human psychological processes be capable of knowing, of
describing the world. The study of how language does this, especially in the
way Buhler proceeds, solves problems which unavoidably arise when the
nonreductionism and realism of Kulpe are presumed. Bühler’s study, however,
does not solve the methodological or epistemological problems nor is it
intended to. It does set a framework in which the problems Külpe sought to
solve remain of crucial importance.
In his studies in psychology and the theory of language Buhler made
assumptions which were the basis of the research in the Wurzburg school and
which were in direct conflict with the leading psychological and methodological
theories of the time. His non-reductionism was the central heretical doctrine.
It had both a psychological and methodological aspect. Both played a role in
his research. The former set his dualistic — field-element approach — the
second lead to his emphasis on the function of language to describe the world.
His deductivism and realism gave the basic Kulpeian elements of a theory of
knowledge. He did not follow Kulpe’s footsteps however in seeking to develop a
methodology. He apparently sought to avoid the problems of the separation of
psychology and methodology for, his study of language lays on both sides. The
problems of metaphysics, of a soul, were avoided even more rigorously than
those of method. These problems were not removed; there were no alternative
answers to them. Buhlers attempts at system had enabled him to work around
them, which is no critique, but not to solve them. These problems, then, formed
the context of Popper’s work.
4. Popper’s
First Problems
Karl Popper’s problems grew out of his work in psychology and
methodology conducted within Bühler’s framework. To begin with he conducted
investigations in both thought psychology and methodology. Both were apparently
Bühlerian. This work can be seen to have lead to his own problems in
methodology. It is apparent that he quickly identified those problems of the
Külpe school which Buhler had not solved. To begin with these were the
separation of psychology and methodology and the development of a
methodological theory which presumed the deductivism of the Wurzburg school.
Popper began his intellectual work, at least that work which is today
available to us, in Buhler’s seminar in Vienna, working in both psychology and
methodology. In both aspects he apparently continued the work of the Wurzburg
school, that is to say, of Bühler. His first psychological work is not
available. His first methodological piece, which is available, was submitted
as a doctorate and has the title Die
Methodenfrage der Den kpsychologie. This work is a Bühlerian analysis of
psychological methods — his own included he says. The problem he deals with is
how scientific psychology should be conducted. He seeks to show on the one
hand that the reductionism of the sort defended by Schlick in philosophy and
exemplified by the Gestalt school in psychology was not only not needed but
harmful and on the other hand that the three aspect schema of Buhler was needed
in thought psychology as well as in the psychology of language, which he deems
Buhler already to have successfully demonstrated.
He did not seek to refute Schlick’s reductionism, i.e. physicalism, as a
metaphysical hypothesis but, just as Kulpe had done before, sought to show that
other possibilities were still open and to repudiate any short cut, that is,
any metaphysical answer to this question which precedes the empirical
psychological research. He argues that psychological research needs to be
carried out quite independently from physiological research, pointing out that
physiological hypotheses which are designed to show the reducibility of
psychological to physiological processes such as those sought by the gestalt
school are always based in psychological hypotheses obtained independently
from physiological research. It is impossible, he says, to start with physical
or physiological hypotheses and to make progress in psychology. As a
methodological program, then, Schlick’s reductionism would be a block to
progress; as a metaphysics it is a mere conjecture which has to be tested
through the development of the sciences of psychology and physiology.
In the second part of his essay Popper seeks to show the necessity of the three aspects of psychology proposed by Bühler, that is, of experience, of behavior and of intellectual structures, for the psychological explanation of thought. The necessity of the first aspect, that of experience, has already been shown to be needed by the Wurzburg school, he contends. Even though there are problems associated with the use of experience or the method of introspection in the study of thought, no thought psychology can be taken seriously, he says, which does not conduct such studies. The second aspect, that of behavior, is necessary, he argues, to explain certain reactions found in animals which are at times purpose oriented and at times not. The reaction to movements, for example, as dangerous are sometimes appropriate and sometimes not. The third aspect, that of cognitive structure, is necessary to explain, for example, meaning. The study of the describing function of language as on Buhler’s approach cannot however adequately fulfil this role by itself. Other factors such as the research of probing behavior indicated by Selz’s psychology must be added. The study of description is at the same time problematical because it raises problems of the relation between the theory of knowledge, of logic and of psychology to one another. These problems need to be solved before a full psychology can be attained. This analysis is crucial. For, shortly after this work Popper turned away from psychology itself in order to solve just these problems, to separate psychology and methodology and build a deductive theory of science — of research — on his deductive - Selzian - psychology. Before turning to this development one further aspect of this essay should be mentioned. Bühler had suggested the importance of a biological explanation for psychology. Popper follows him here, proposing that a system of psychology should be incorporated in a biological system to attain completeness.
When Popper had finished his doctorate he had adopted the
non-reductionism of the Wurzburg school, he had attempted to develop his own
psychology which could apparently be placed within this school - he says it was
similar to Selz’s - and he had
discovered within the chosen Bühlerian schema the need to consider the
problems of the separation of logic, methodology and psychology as well as the
need to extend the study of thought beyond the describing function of language.
These problems were acute at the time due at least in part to the difficulties
discussed above of interpreting such theories as that of Selz. If one adds to
this the need for a methodological theory which was deductivist, which could
take the place of Kulpe’s attempt to form such a theory, one had the basic
elements of Popper’s problem situation which came from the Würzburg school as
he started work in methodology. There are other aspects of course. Some of
these such as his attempt to explain why Freud’s work should not be included
within science may be due to the influence of this school since Bühler in Die Krise der Psychologie had also
wanted to exclude Freudianism and this book was central for Popper’s own early
view. This and other aspects may be added but the problematic of the Wurzburg
school gives a quite rich and adequate context for Popper’s problems.
Popper’s
first attempt or rather attempts to develop a methodological theory are found
in his only recently published Die beiden
Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. He here begins with some of those
problems noted in his doctorate, that is the separation of psychology and
methodology in order to clear the way for the development of his own
methodological theory. He does not there discuss the problem in its broader
dimension. He has a narrow purpose. He wishes to lay the basis for his study in
the theory of knowledge. His problem arises due to the background of his work
in psychology. He defended a deductive psychology, that is, a psychology which
presumes some inbuilt structure to thought which is not merely a product of
combinations of sensations. His own methodology should be deductive apparently
building on the deductive point of view found in the psychology. But the two domains
could not be identified. He notes that there are deductive psychologies such
as that of Selz and inductive psychologies as well as deductive and inductive
methodologies. He argues that they need not come in inductive and deductive
pairs. Thus, a deductive psychology may be compatible with an inductive
methodology or the other way around. Popper’s own approach, of course, is to
continue his work in deductive psychology with a deductive methodology. Without
solving the problems of the relationships between psychology and methodology he
could, with this tactic, open the way for the independent development of his
view. His problem situation thus repeats to a large extent that of Kulpe, who,
as explained above, sought to form a methodological theory which presumed his
psychological results, which was, however, distinct from psychology and which
would supply a methodology for the continuation of psychological research.
The problems which Popper faced in developing his methodology were, of
course, not identical with those which were faced by Külpe. The most important
difference was the need, already recognised by Buhler, to take account of the
new logic of Frege, Russell and Hubert. Popper was thus required to deal
extensively with the work of the Vienna Circle since they had the lead the way
in developing methodologies, albeit inductive methodologies, which sought to
take account of the new developments in logic.
Popper did not meet with instant success. Some of the difficulties he
met and had to overcome are evident in Die
beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. The task of analysing the
development of Popper’s views will not, of course be undertaken here’. The
demonstration of how Popper’s first problems grew out of the dialectic within
the Wurzburg school and between psychology and methodology is sufficient to
show the influence of the Wurzburg school and the roots of Popper’s view. I
should note however that even with the completion of his first methodological
theories in Die beiden Grundprobleme und
Logik der Forschung Popper did not
achieve all the aims of the Wurzburg school which happened to be his own. Above
all these theories are not realistic. Popper says that he in fact was a realist
but that he deemed this a personal matter. He thus defends in his early work
the positivist thesis that his own theory of science is compatible with any
metaphysic and with any interpretation of science, whether idealist or realist
or any other. The problems of the Wurzburg school thus stayed with him. He needed
to develop later a realist interpretation of his theory and still later he
returned to problems of metaphysics, of the soul and of a scientific
psychology. These developments are, however, another story.
Note: I have continued this
story in my review of Die beiden Grundprobleme “The
Road through Wurzburg, Vienna and Göttingen,” The Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 4. Dec. 1985.
pp. 487-506.