Behavior and Philosophy 35:149 - 183 (2007)
|Abstract||This paper is a conceptual analysis of the theory debate in psychology, as carried out by cognitivists and radical behaviorists. The debate has focused on the necessity of theories in psychology. However, the logically primary issue is the nature of theories, or what theories are. This claim stems from the fact that cognitivists and radical behaviorists adopt disparate accounts of the nature of theories. The cognitivists' account is closely akin to the received view from logical positivism, where theories are collections of statements and theoretical terms are restricted to designate unobservable entities. Radical behaviorists also conceive theories as collections of statements, but restrict theoretical terms in psychology to designate observable entities. If each side approaches the necessity issue with its preferred account, both agree that theories are necessary in psychology. Hence, there is no disagreement over the necessity of theories in psychology per se, only over the nature of theories. The received view, however, has been shown to suffer from irreparable difficulties that have led to its total rejection in post-positivistic philosophy of science. Alternative accounts, like the structuralist and semantic views, do not raise the issue of whether theories are necessary in psychology.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Beatty (1980). What's Wrong with the Received View of Evolutionary Theory? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:397 - 426.
Bence Nanay (2002). Evolutionary Psychology and the Selectionist Model of Neural Development: A Combined Approach. Evolution and Cognition.
Valerie Tiberius & Alicia Hall, Normative Theory and Psychological Research: Hedonism, Eudaimonism and Why It Matters.
Jussi Jylkkä (2008). Theories of Natural Kind Term Reference and Empirical Psychology. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):153-169.
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
John Bickle (1993). Connectionism, Eliminativism, and the Semantic View of Theories. Erkenntnis 39 (3):359-382.
Valerie Gray Hardcastle (1995). A Critique of Information Processing Theories of Consciousness. Minds and Machines 5 (1):89-107.
Gerd Gigerenzer & Thomas Sturm (2007). Tools=Theories=Data? On Some Circular Dynamics in Cognitive Science. In Mitchell G. Ash & Thomas Sturm (eds.), Psychology’s Territories: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives from Different Disciplines. Erlbaum.
Michael Wertheimer (1988). Obstacles to the Integration of Competing Theories in Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 1 (1):131 – 137.
Terry L. Smith (1988). Neo-Skinnerian Psychology: A Non-Radical Behaviorism. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:143 - 148.
Anna Estany (2001). The Thesis of Theory-Laden Observation in the Light of Cognitive Psychology. Philosophy of Science 68 (2):203-217.
Kelby Mason, Chandra Sripada & Stephen P. Stich (forthcoming). The Philosophy of Psychology. In Dermot Moran (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Routledge.
Frederick Suppe (2000). Understanding Scientific Theories: An Assessment of Developments, 1969-1998. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):115.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads1 ( #290,877 of 722,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?