Jim Dougan wrote: > At 10:03 PM 8/12/2008, Michale Smith wrote: > > >> Surely there are laws in other fields; e.g. >> Boyle's law for gasses; the laws of >> thermodynamics; the law of gravity; the inverse >> square law of light.
There may well be. That is a distinct issue from whether the term has been used with any consistency in the past. >> It would seem that a law >> should be able to be defined and not at the whim >> of whomever: Something like a relationship >> between variables which is consistent across >> conditions---and I don't think psychology has any >> such stable relationships which 'always hold'. >> It sounds like you just did exactly what I said Gary could do. It is not so much a matter of "whim." It is a matter of whether such a relationship has consistently been called a law, and whether only such relationships are so called. The answer would appear to be no (which is why arguing over why this psychological phenomenon is called a law, but that equally (un)reliable on is not is a futile debate. The fault is not in the stars, but in ourselves. :-) 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/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
