In this case we can see that in process of paradigm shift is determined ex-rational irrational or even rational, irrational and sometimes rises to the sound. Each new paradigm serves as a goal the entire preceding development of psychology and serves as the basis of specific rational reconstructions of history. Kevin ulrich takes a slightly different approach. This is a rewrite, rebuild history will continue as long as there is objective knowledge. Accordingly, our evaluation of various phenomena of history of psychology can never become final, they are constantly changing, because they are just as relative as all our knowledge. It follows that the question of which line is rational line of development psychology, which irrational or irrational, is largely meaningless. Accordingly, the task of rational reconstruction of the history of psychology is very valuable relative.
In the development of psychology at any time you can distinguish a rational line in terms of the dominant paradigm, as well as latent and rational line of development, but the future of these lines can not be rational. So when it comes to choosing between competing paradigms, the choice of which strategy would be to recommend? One could say, to choose the paradigm that dominates or today, or tomorrow will win, it will make your behavior is rational in the eyes of the modern scientific community. But the answer is not quite honest, because what is rational from the perspective of a private, intermediate purpose, it may be irrational from the standpoint of a common goal. Therefore, to maintain and should fight for the paradigm in which the truth you believe. This is the only rational behavior. If you believe in the truth one paradigm, but refuses to support it and start winning, or one that will win tomorrow, then you are doing is irrational. Let the defending dropped a paradigm of the truth that you are confident you will be look in the eyes of supporters irrationalist winning paradigm, in the eyes of the entire scientific community, but in his own eyes you – a rationalist. And when the next stage of learning will lead to new re-evaluations, you can only call a rationalist, remain committed to the truth in the period of confusion.
Pointer References Pechenkin AA Modern philosophy of science. M., 1996. Lakatos I. The history of science and its rational reconstruction / / Structure of Scientific Revolutions / Ed. VU Kuznetsov. M., 2001. James W. Introduction to Philosophy. M., 2000. Wundt W. The system of philosophy. Moscow. 2002. Vvedensky AI Psychology without metaphysics. Pg., 1915. T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions / / The Structure of Scientific Revolutions / Ed. VU Kuznetsov. M., 2001. Nicholas of Cusa. Ignorance about the scientist / / Collected Works. , 1979. Frank, SL Inconceivable / / Works. Moscow, 1990. Copyright 2005-2007 by HvB WebDesign St: Petersburg. All Rights Reserved.