I'd like to toss out a nomination for Ebbinghaus' 1885 monograph on memory. It lacks the status of a full-fledge experiment since he was his own subject but it was original and it stimulated a lot of subsequent research.
On 3/17/07, Gerald Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am sure psychologists would have a hard time achieving consensus about such a list, but for me the keys were the idea of psych studies. Now, that means to me, research efforts or some basic, systematic inquiry adhering to fundamental scientific principles. That leaves out Freud in my view. Also, I know I am being picky perhaps, but there are folks outside of psychology who have done scientific work that can be influential....Freud for example would be a psychiatrist, not a psychologist, but again did no systematic study. Indeed, we refer to him in psych classes more to illustrate the pitfalls of sloppy thinking. Pavlov would turn over in his grave to be considered a psychologist, but yes, we might consider his work clearly relevant. Fechner's work would be influential, but there are others, such as Stevens who brought more order to psychophysics. Gary Gerald L. (Gary) Peterson, Ph.D. Professor, Psychology Saginaw Valley State University University Center, MI 48710 989-964-4491 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
-- Rick Stevens Psychology Department University of Louisiana at Monroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
