首页> 外文期刊>Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science >A Stale challenge to the philosophy of science
【24h】

A Stale challenge to the philosophy of science

机译:对科学哲学的陈旧挑战

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In his article "Is psychology based on a methodological error?" and based on a quite convincing empirical basis, Michael Schwarz offers a methodological critique of one of mainstream psychology's key test theoretical axioms, i.e., that of the in principle normal distribution of personality variables. It is characteristic of this paper-and at first seems to be a strength of it-that the author positions his critique within a frame of philosophy of science, particularly positioning himself in the tradition of Karl Popper's critical rationalism. When scrutinizing Schwarz's arguments, however, we find Schwarz's critique profound only as an immanent critique of test theoretical axioms. We raise doubts, however, as to Schwarz's alleged 'challenge' to the philosophy of science because the author not at all seems to be in touch with the state of the art of contemporary philosophy of science. Above all, we question the universalist undercurrent that Schwarz's 'bio-psycho-social model' of human judgment boils down to. In contrast to such position, we close our commentary with a plea for a context- and culture sensitive philosophy of science.
机译:在他的文章“心理学是否基于方法论错误?”并基于相当令人信服的经验基础,迈克尔·施瓦兹(Michael Schwarz)对主流心理学的主要检验理论公理之一,即人格变量原则上正态分布的理论公理进行了方法论上的批评。作者的特点(起初似乎是它的强项)是作者将其批评置于科学哲学框架内,尤其是将自己置于卡尔·波普尔批判理性主义的传统中。但是,在仔细审视施瓦茨的论点时,我们发现施瓦茨的批评仅是对检验理论公理的内在批评。然而,我们对施瓦茨所谓的对科学哲学的“挑战”提出了质疑,因为作者似乎根本与当代科学哲学的艺术状态没有联系。首先,我们对施瓦茨的人类判断的“生物心理社会模型”归结为普遍主义暗流。与这种立场相反,我们以对上下文和文化敏感的科学哲学作为恳求来结束我们的评论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号