On Wed, 05 Aug 2015 05:27:06 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Miguel Roig <[email protected]> wrote:
My favorite pet peeve: "Scientific proof". The one I was most
surprised
about: "Operational definition".
The article in question is the following:
Green, C. D. (1992). Of Immortal Mythological Beasts Operationism
in Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 2(3), 291-320.
The article appears in a special issue that appears to be devoted
to pistol whipping operationism like a blind kid (a "Topic Thunder"
reference). See the following for the table of contents:
http://tap.sagepub.com/content/2/3.toc
One might also want to look at the following article for the view of
how f'ed psychology is/was, circa 1992:
Bickhard, M. H. (1992). Myths of Science Misconceptions of
Science in Contemporary Psychology. Theory & Psychology,
2(3), 321-337.
Thanks for the citation Scott! 23 years on, still one of my most-cited
articles.
Chris, I have a minor point to make: your footnote 2 in reference to
Hull seems to be in error or could be interpreted in an alternative
fashion.
The "inferring back" or the error of "affirming the consequent" is only
an error if one is doing deductive reasoning but not in abductive
reasoning as proposed by Charles S. Peirce. See my review of
Brian Haig's book "Investigating the Psychological World" which
provides the scheme that Peirce use for abductive reasoning and
how abductive reasoning is being used in contemporary philosophy
and artificial intelligence::
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268687360_Would_Sherlock_Holmes_Have_Been_a_Good_Researcher
Haig argues for abductive reasoning as a possible basis for developing
a philosophy of scientific methods in psychology. However,.since
Haig takes a philosophical view of things, most psychologists won't
really
understand what he say because, as all right thinking psychologists
know,
psychologists are as bad at philosophy of science as they are at
statistical
analysis (another topic I have a book review on but there is only so
much
self-promotion I can engage in ;-). Oh, also, Haig philosophical
framework
applies only to nonexperimental psychology.
Another 'must read' from Scott Lilienfeld:
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full
I guess this means that psychologists also suck at using language.
Is there anything that psychologists are good at? It's a wonder they
produce anything of value. ;-) <- Note.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=46297
or send a blank email to
leave-46297-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
