Tackling uneasy questions requires a critical psychology.

Public debates on various academic topics have become part of contemporary culture.  In these debates partisans from both sides normally attack each other merely externally.  The aim is to seek out the slits or gaps in their opponent’s individual armour or standpoint and to disclose its weakness.  

The standpoint of a specific partisan often has an impressive following.  Let us take for example the short interaction between Roger Penrose and Michio Kaku in the 2022 debate on the future of the multiverse theory.  Penrose’s standpoint is acceptable to his followers because it is something they can understand and appreciate.  The same applies to Kaku.  His standpoint is acceptable to his followers because they can grasp and appreciate it.  Judged from a different point of view, however, the said debate is fruitless because it has not influenced Penrose’s or Kaku’s standpoints in any way.  This is very much what generally happens in debates.  They end in discord and maintain the status quo.  It would also be unrealistic to expect from either Penrose or Kaku to alter the essence of their own standpoint.                  

We may ask if Penrose and Kaku differ solely because of personal differences in their standpoints or whether there may also be a more general psychological reason for these differences.  Individuals who view these differences as being due solely to personal differences in standpoint are satisfied with the “what” question.  They only ask what Penrose is saying or what Kaku is saying.  But we can shift our point of view by asking “how” Penrose is saying what he is saying or “how” Kaku is saying what he is saying.  This question has nothing to do with behaviour or micro-gestures but has everything to do with the formation of their personal standpoints.  How do they shape or mould their standpoints?  This is what a critical psychology is all about.  A critical psychology investigates and indicates the particular “ordering principle” that determines how Penrose and Kaku give shape to their individual respective standpoints.               

A critical psychology enables us to transfer disputes to the psychological realm.  This process penetrates the foundation that underpins disputes.  A true psychological criticism gives us definite clues to unlock and grasp at least certain general differences in the ways Penrose and Kaku present their standpoints.  A critical psychology, in essence, means an objective, empirical outside point of reference. Metaphorically expressed, seeing west from the cardinal vantage point of north. A critical psychology can also become very uncomfortable for everyone at some point.  It tackles uneasy questions.  To mention a few, does everyone who claims to be a scientist really have a scientific mind-set?  What are the limitations of having a scientific mind-set?  Do all problems have scientific solutions?  Furthermore, a critical psychology enables self-critique.