Methodology for Statements of Problems: Kantor and Spearman Conjoined

Abstract

Modern objective science deals with “statements of facts, “ subjective science deals, instead, with “statements of problems.” The latter are widely held to be insoluble; the practice is to transform them into soluble problems by acts of judgment—the art of policymaking. The question arises: Can policymaking be made more science that art? This is the problem of problems, in the subjective domain, mainly in formation of significant concepts. Q-methodology provides an affirmative answer to this problem.

An example is provided, for Freeman Dyson’s views on the problem of nuclear war, in which humanistic subjectivity (Hope) is distinguished from objective inhumanism (Weapons). The study shows that concepts of moral feeling-states are at the root of Dyson’s humanism.

The method requires acceptance of “self-reference” as central to subjective science. It happens that Kantor and Spearman are congruent with respect to the state of psychology “down the ages;” but their formulations remain in the Newtonian mode of objectivity. The formulation of Q, in relativity, quantum theoretical, and interbehavioral terms, adds to this a basis for subjective science. This provides answers to the problem of consciousness and mind. An appeal is made for a few interbehaviorists to advance into the Einsteinian age of relativity, quantum theory, and interbehaviorism.