Constructive Alternativism implies that
Passage-III
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.
Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.
Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.