Critical Analysis Paper - Essay Example

Principles of the Functionalistic Theory Ramakrishna S Functionalistic tradition can be said to be of immense significance in American psychology, considering the profound influence it has had on behaviorism, Gestalt psychology and even the modern information-processing theories of cognition. The purpose of this paper is to examine the key principles of the theory of functionalism. It compares and contrasts the perspectives of John Dewey, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.Principles of the Functionalistic Theory Strictly speaking, functionalism, as such, is not a new philosophy.

Its evolution was largely as a critique of structuralism which sought to establish consciousness and elementism as exclusive areas of study. It was also contemptuous of the Descartes method of building belief on the foundation of doubting. One point on which the views of John Dewey, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper concur is in rejecting the positivist supposition that the method of Descartes could be of value in accelerating scientific progress. Functionalism set naturalism, rather than natural sciences, as the gold standard for teaching and research.

The basic assumption is that consciousness is the most important factor in the interpretation of human behavior, which in turn is an indicator of what lies beneath (Sternberg 15). Functionalist philosophers explicitly upheld the pragmatist ideas of William James while they minced no words in sharply differing with the notions of neo-idealists. John Dewey, who was a staunch supporter of the idealist tradition, however, was critical of the neo-idealists, particularly after 1903. A similar fundamental change in intellectual position can also be noticed in the case of Thomas Kuhn, who, at one point of time, had challenged the very nature of science, and later reverted to orthodoxy.

When we say that functionalists viewed knowledge in historicist and psychological terms, we would do well not to miss the difference between knowledge in an individual consciousness and knowledge in a socially constituted discipline. In this context, the theory of Karl Popper gives us greater clarity by identifying knowledge claims with rigid commitments rather than testable hypotheses (Remedios VIII). While Dewey suggests that all knowledge growth is primarily a function of the experience of the race, Popper bases his theory on the faculty of critical reasoning.

Both of them, however, reject methodological instrumentalism, though their understanding of the term seems to differ. It may also be pointed out here that Popper’s use of the term ‘instrumentalism’ to refer to the notion that scientific theories are just convenient devices to make empirical predictions brings to mind Kuhn’s view that science is also a social or cultural construct and that our evaluations are based on principles that reflect our own belief system (Hassard 79). Dewey’s theory of development did not endorse the view that pure logic had to deal with universally valid forms of thought.

To validate this, he attempted to integrate philosophy and psychology. His apparent transformation from a child-centered inductionist to a discipline-centered social constructivist is often seen as a contradiction. It does not have to be so. On the contrary, it bears out his theory that a shift in consciousness is an unavoidable outcome of social and personal growth. With regard to the validity of induction, Popper’s greatest contribution was his critique of induction, by way of counter-examples and refutations, using which he solved the Humean problem, examining it from the perspectives of positivism, apriorism, conventionalism and pragmatism (Corvi 33).

The shortcomings of functionalism notwithstanding, its principles have timeless relevance for the human race for they attempt to give science an intellectual face instead of a materialistic one. The potential of science and education in improving the quality of people thereby making the world a better place depends largely on our adherence to Dewey’s suggestion that educators must teach their students to live through the stages of savages, barbarians and positivists before trying to make them disciplinary experts or modernists.

ReferenceCorvi, Roberta (2005). An Introduction to the Thought of Karl Popper. Routledge: London.Hassard, John (1995). Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press: New York. Remedios, Francis (2003). Legitimizing Scientific Knowledge: An Introduction to Steve Fuller’s Epistemology. Lexington Books: Lanham, Maryland.Sternberg, Robert J (1994). Thinking and Problem Solving. Academic Press: San Diego, California.