At 1:19 AM +0000 8/16/01, Richard Pisacreta wrote:
> As I was taught, a Law is a description of a function, a relation between
>two or more phenomena, that holds true 100% of the time. A law must be
>represented mathematically so that various values can be entered and produce
>precise mathematical predictions. As I asked Paul, why isn't it Premack's Law
>instead of Premack's principle?
I think that you (or your source) are reading too much into the term "law".
Psychology has always had a bad case of Physics Envy; the physics in
question being classical Newtonian mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is less
precise.
The terms 'law' and 'principle' are often used interchangeably in science.
>I remember Dick Herrnstein talking to me about his early days at Harvard.
>Whatever interesting data he presented to the senior faculty, their reply
>was invariably, "Show us a function".
Sounds like Smitty Stevens.
>Ironically, it motivated him to discover the Matching Law.
Which is, of course, a mathematical restatement of the Law of Effect.
There's a lot of experimental literature concerning the precise
mathematical nature of that law based on data and predictions.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
