Suzanne Howard
Oral Presentation #2
Reference #2
Swedenborg and the History of Psychology: College Students Speak Out by: Dr. Leon James
http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/instructor/speak_out_sw.html
I. Introduction
A. Dr. James taught a History of Psychology
class at the
B. Out of the 23 students in his class, 13 replied “Yes” and 10 replied “No”.
C. The following include some of the responses given by various students.
D. I will then give my opinions about each student’s response.
II. Student #1
A. “Swedenborg tried to bring spirituality into science. He contributes to the psychology of the mind. Revelation as a phenomenon has not been disproven. Others who were wrong, were included (like Freud), so why not Swedenborg? He gives a new paradigm.”
1. This student is saying that he/she would allow Swedenborg into the study of the history of psychology. I agree that revelation has not been disproved, and therefore, it would make no sense to automatically disprove it. The student is also saying that others, like Freud, have been incorporated into psychology even though many of his theories were shown to be inaccurate. Therefore, we could include Swedenborg into psychology, even if, down the road, his theories are dismissed.
2. I agree with this reason for inclusion of Swedenborg into psychology. Psychology is a science that has been constructed by humans, and is therefore, fallible. We should not exclude Swedenborg from psychology just because he may be found to be incorrect sometime down the road.
III. Student #2
A. “The fact that his ideas are based on his own experiences and no one else’s, makes it difficult for science to accept them. Where do we draw the line? Will we have to accept anyone’s experiences? Swedenborg should be mentioned as a theory maybe, but not necessarily as a fact.”
1. Because Swedenborg is the only person who can verify his data, it is difficult to call his evidence scientific. Yes, it is true that we all will be able to verify his data, but that will only happen after we die. The student is saying that if we accept Swedenborg’s evidence without verification from other scientists, where will we draw the line? Will we have to accept everyone’s data who claims to have had a unique experience?
2. I agree with this student’s opinions. I second the question “Where do we draw the line?” I agree that Swedenborg’s work should be studied as a theory, but not as science or factual data.
IV. Student #3
A. “Would you believe it today if someone claimed to have seen the other world? The definition of science excludes “faith” concepts. Still, as long as Swedenborg’s claims are remotely possible, and have not been disproven, we shouldn’t dismiss his theories, but instead, look upon them as one more paradigm. Personally, I don’t think his theories would survive very long.”
1. It seems to me that this student has many reasons for not wanting to include Swedenborg into science. Namely, he/she implies that it would be unlikely for people to accept the claims of Swedenborg in our society today. Also it seems as if the student is saying that Swedenborg is a “faith” concept, and that those should not be included into science. Even though the student has many reasons for not wanting to include Swedenborg, nonetheless, he/she concludes that Swedenborg should be included because his theories are possible.
2. I agree with this student about the many reasons why Swedenborg should not be included into science. However, I do disagree that his works should be included just because they are possible. I do not think that we should include every theory into the study of psychology just because it is possible. I think these theories need to have verifiable evidence to assure their accurateness. This is where I feel that Swedenborg’s writings fall short.
V. Student #4
A. “In my opinion, revelation is possible so one should not totally exclude it. To exclude Swedenborg from psychology would exclude anything spiritual from it. I’m not arguing whether Swedenborg was right or wrong, but he may give us some valuable information just as Freud’s theories did, although some of his work has been proven wrong.”
1. This student is saying that because of the possibility that revelation is true, it should not be excluded from psychology. Also, excluding Swedenborg from psychology would be synonymous with excluding anything spiritual.
2. I agree that because of the possibility that Swedenborg’s work is true, then it should be included in psychology. However, I feel that it should be further studied before it is taught as a science. I do not think that Swedenborg and spirituality go hand in hand. I think that you can know spirituality without knowing anything about Swedenborg. Therefore, I do not think that if Swedenborg is not included in psychology then spirituality will also be excluded.
VI. Student #5
A. “Swedenborg should not be included in the science of psychology. Science can be measured – how can his reports be measured? Just because he wrote so many volumes of his accounts – who is to say they weren’t just imagination? I think Swedenborg should rather be included in religion because the belief is based on faith (faith in Swedenborg, that he is real).”
1. This student is saying that Swedenborg should not be included in psychology because his reports cannot be measured scientifically. She also appears to be saying that there is no way to show that Swedenborg’s writings are not just works from his imagination.
2. I agree with this student in every way. First of all, I do not think that there is any way for Swedenborg’s work to be verified scientifically. I also agree that he belongs more with religion than with science – unless there is any way to verify his work. Because there is not way to verify the Writings, it would take faith to believe in Swedenborg.