On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Mike Palij <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> 

The "special issue” was a kind of happy accident. I submitted my paper 
independently, but Hank Stam appeared to have a number of related papers 
submitted at about the same time and, so, PRANG! a “special issue” was born. 
There was a followup issue in the same journal in 2001, when Randolph Grace 
attempted to come to operationism’s defence, and a number of us were called 
upon to respond to the attempt. I don’t have them all, but my own reply can be 
found here: http://www.yorku.ca/christo/papers/Grace.reply.htm 

> 
> 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.

It might be, but I would be stunned and amazed if Clark Hull knew very much at 
all about Charles Peirce’s work. When William James first publicly adopted the 
term “pragmatism” in an 1898 talk at Cal (and then repeated the story in 
Varieties of Religious Experience just a few years later), he felt the need to 
explain who Peirce was because he expected that no one in either audience would 
know of the man or his work. If Hull had studied at Harvard with James, then he 
might have learned of P’s "third form" of logic — abduction — but Hull did his 
PhD with Jastrow at Wisconsin, and then got picked up by Yale (presided over by 
James R. Angell). Hull’s approach to science was explicitly 
hypothetic-deductive which, to my mind anyway, is distinct from abduction (at 
least William Rozeboom thought so: 
http://web.psych.ualberta.ca/~rozeboom/files/1997_Good_science_is_abductive.pdf 
)

Best,
Chris
---
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
43.773897°, -79.503667°

[email protected]
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
………………………………...



---
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=46299
or send a blank email to 
leave-46299-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to