You are free to define it however you would like Gary. My point was only that it has not been used in a consistent way, either in psychology, or in the rest of natural science. So the question of why claim A is called a "law" and claim 2 isn't turns out to be more of an fuzzy historical question (e.g. "why did they (not) do it then?") than a strict theoretical one (e.g., "a claim is called a law when X, Y, Z")
Regards, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ===================== Gerald Peterson wrote: > So psychologists conclude there are no scientific laws (in psych?) in the > sense of established, reliable relationships, or that the word is meaningless > in psychology? I take it the latter is the popular consensus? A scientific > law or principle in psychology is the same as theory or theoretical idea? > That seems to be even more confusing. Is the term that empty (for > psychologists)? Yes, psychologists (historically or otherwise) seem to use > such terms rather loosely, but I don't think the idea of a scientific law or > principle is that hard to fathom. Perhaps the problem is that some wish the > term to refer to some essentialist and rigid idea? Still wondering....Gary > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
