I’m stuck on a Psychology question and need an explanation.
Read the article and answer the following questions in complete sentences
“Brentano and Wundt: Empirical and Experimental Psycholog (Links to an external site.)y” by Edward Titchener represents the crossroads at which Psychology stood during this time – what should the study of Psychology be? Brentano and Wundt both had textbooks on Psychology; Titchener’s article considers the similarities, differences, and differing emphases.
Read the article (please give yourself plenty of time – primary sources are not a quick read!) and answer the following questions in complete sentences. There are some questions for which direct information from the article is acceptable; otherwise, direct quotes from the article will not earn credit and you will need to explain in your own words. Spelling and grammar count. Please type answers directly into the text box – do not upload a document into the text box.
According to Titchener, Wundt believed that the path to psychology as an independent science was through what? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
According to Titchener, on how many points did Wundt and Brentano agree in 1874 (include the “ands!”)? Which topic did they both reject?
While considering Brentano’s definition of psychology, Titchener states that studying psychical phenomena is important because physical phenomena alone “do not carry us beyond them.” What does Titchener mean by this, in your own words?
One of the key issues in establishing the appropriate subject matter for Psychology is the statement that “inner perception is not observation; it is rather self-evident cognition or judgment.” In your own words, why is this potentially a problem as we try to establish psychology as a science?
In the article, how are “vital processes” viewed in physiology vs. psychology for Wundt?
In the article, Titchener makes it clear that Wundt uses a reductionist approach in how he tries to describe the mind. How so? (If you need to look up reductionist, go ahead!)
At the end of the article, Titchener seems to favor one of Wundt or Brentano with respect to establishing psychology as a science. Who seems to “win out,” in Titchener’s view?