A. “Verification” of statements in psychology

Abstract

(1) In contradistinction to mathematics, physics and biology, psychology and psychiatry deal to a large extent with the verbal behaviour of their objects. They are faced with two kinds of “sense”-problems: those with which the observer has to do in his theory-construction, and those which are characteristic of the verbal behaviour of his subjects.

(2) Apart from a schematic and simplified usage, as it occurs in filling-up exercises and other laboratory verbal behaviour, the psychologist has to do with statements the sense of which, on the one hand, is determined by the usage of his subjects and, on the other hand, so far as his records and theory are concerned, by his own language-sense.

(3) This situation may give rise, and often gives rise, to all kinds of verbal confusions. If we call object-language the language used in verbal behaviour of people which psychology investigates and meta-language the language psychology uses in its discourse about the verbal behaviour of people, it becomes obvious that in present-day psychology the two languages are inextricably mixed together. The language of the subject is I-language, that of the observer, in relation to the subject, is he-language. Both, investigators and investigated, often use terms without “referents” or with only verbal associations. There can be a great “dispersion” between the “sense” of statements used by the subject and that of statements used by the observer.

(4) The use of “physical language” is not a remedy against a confusing terminology. One can tell highly speculative stories in physical language. The empirical verification of statements used by the investigator would require naming the concrete operations involved in testing them.

(5) “Objective”, in the sense of a class of responses yielding maximum reliability coefficients within or between individuals facing a common observational situation or situational element, refers to a criterion to which the protocol of the tester is subjected. An investigation into the way in which subjects verify their, often mainly emotive, statements requires other means (e.g. looking at the way in which they justify their behaviour or trying to break through the chain of their verbal associations (circular reasonings)).