Newell

In the article, “You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win”(1973), the cognitive psychologist Allen Newell , reasons about the real value of the amount of scientific research that has been continuously produced. Despite recognizing the stimulant role of  new studies in the experimental psychology field, he states that the majority of these studies are usually focused on individual phenomena, like the Posner’s phenomenon of apparent rotation, and the Klahr’s phenomenon of coding works, for instance. Newell believes that this pattern of study leaves aside the fact that perhaps some of these findings could be more productive if related each other bringing more progress and new perspectives to Psychology development as a mature science. According to the author, the recurrent using this form of approaching to investigate these phenomena as a binary problem creates limitations.

Nonetheless, Newell asserts that this dominant current experimental style may not be so productive. In his opinion, the frequent use of binary distinctions as the 20 examples cited in his work, does not provide an adequate explanation of the phenomena. The researcher analyses this experimental style of two constructions in different levels and for that, the results may be inconclusive. I this article, Newell is questioning if this style of phenomena based on opposition's investigation is the better way to accomplish better results in the field of cognitive psychology research.  The author points out that many studies are essential in providing necessary explanations about these phenomenas, getting a better understanding of the mind.  However, it is also critical to notice the following number of researches seeking to clarify the same experiment, what Newell considers undeniable evidence that psychological prepositions have difficulties to be appropriately analyzed across time if the scientific question is not answered.

After making an evaluation of many scientific papers, the author suggests that several studies involving isolated pieces of information could be more valuable if compilated all together. It would contribute to the growth of experimental psychology, as cumulative learning possible to address many issues that some other study in the same area may systematically possess.

Convinced that these concerns should be taken seriously, Newell suggests three necessary actions to improving the real gain in understanding in the psychology field. First, Newell proposes complete processing models than the regular partial one used in current studies and seems to be deficient to for present purposes. The possibility of a more complex model would give more opportunities to detect which control system is used for many different human's purposes and obtain better pieces of information of the distinct activities involved in brain process like vision and language for example.

In the second place, Newell considers the importance of the full analysis of a complex task to force the study of a series of experimental and theoretical that are related to each other.  This approach seeks to analyze the entire set of results and contradictions between different theories and then integrates all the knowledge in a unique strategy. 

The third suggestion is to construct one program for many tasks that would work as a  general purpose system which is able to perform all mental tasks like artificial intelligence processing a variety of pieces of information. 

Newell's analytic position allows him to detect critical issues that could offer an improvement in the pattern of doing research and proposes a diagnosis to identify and avoid usual problems. He thinks that the method is fundamental for envision what you have to do to reach your target.  In the processing of psychology, it is necessary to acknowledge that the subject's behavior is predictable if we know the person's goals and the structure of the task environment. In this way, it is possible to make an efficient prediction of which are the better methods available for the subject and avoid misinterpretations of the results.  The other consideration is putting every result of an experiment together, integrating related pieces of information on the same topic. This juxtaposition of results could generate new perspectives to reinterpret combined information that could beneficiate a further analysis seeking for a more favorable result.