Re: Independent and Dependent Variables

[Paul Okami]

Title: Re: Independent and Dependent Variables

Wallace E. Dixon wrote:   Karl was paraphrasing a comment I made in response to his query. The idea that causation can be determined simply by manipulating one variable and then seeing whether another variable "moves" -- adopted by psychology in the early 20th century -- is based on long-refuted philosophies of causation that find their origins in the work of David Hume and John Stuart Mill. There was much progress made on the theory of causation in the second half of the 20th century, none of which is reflected in experimental psychologists' methodology. For those interested, I recommend the Oxford (1993) collection of "classic" readings edited by Sosa & Tooley under the title of _Causation_.    I admit to not having read the collection to which you refer.  However, I'm wary when I hear "long-discredited" with no further comment (although I have done this myself).  For example, social constructionists and followers of Kuhn repeatedly refer to logical positivism, Popperian philosophy of science etc., as "long discredited" when it in no way is long-discredited.    Is there some way you can briefly summarize the ways in which Mill and those whom he influenced had it all wrong, so I may ammend my beliefs according to the new consensus view of causality of which I seem to be shockingly ignorant?   Thank you,   Paul Okami, Ph.D. Dept. of Psycholgy Dept. of Communication Studies UCLA Los Angeles, CA  90095 [EMAIL PROTECTED]     --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]