Stuart McKelvie:
I wonder if he or someone else can enlighten us if physics
has a special meaning for law?
Chris Green:
Darwin's and Einstein's theories are far broader and scope
and far more firmly established than *anything* in psychology,
and yet they are not called laws. More than anything
I made a slip in the last sentence of my previous posting. It should have
read:
But from a teaching perspective it would seem a bit odd (to me at least) to
present the above relationship as Boyle's theory, which has a connotation
of some uncertainty which is not warranted (as a generalisation
Jim Dougan wrote:
At 10:03 PM 8/12/2008, Michale Smith wrote:
Surely there are laws in other fields; e.g.
Boyle's law for gasses; the laws of
thermodynamics; the law of gravity; the inverse
square law of light.
There may well be. That is a distinct issue from whether the term has
On Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:03:57 -0700 (PDT), Michael Smith wrote:
Surely there are laws in other fields; e.g. Boyle's law for
gasses; the laws of thermodynamics; the law of gravity; the inverse square
law
of light. It would seem that a law should be able to be defined and not at
the
whim of
In a recent episode of my podcast I stated that contrary to the
advocates of The Secret (who claim that the law of attraction is a
fundamental law in psychology), I knew of only two concepts in
psychology which are referred to as laws - Thorndike's Law of Effect
and Weber's law. Fellow
)
Subject: [tips] Laws in psychology
In a recent episode of my podcast I stated that contrary to the
advocates of The Secret (who claim that the law of attraction is a
fundamental law in psychology), I knew of only two concepts in
psychology which are referred to as laws - Thorndike's Law
Well, I would certainly include Fechner's and Weber's laws.
At 09:14 AM 8/12/2008, you wrote:
In a recent episode of my podcast I stated that contrary to the
advocates of The Secret (who claim that the law of attraction is a
fundamental law in psychology), I knew of only two concepts in
Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
___
-Original Message-
From: Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 12, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Laws
Please note that what are referred as laws in psychology are really
principles Principles allow for experimental verification but laws may
not.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
-Original Message-
From: Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: August 12, 2008 10:14 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: [tips] Laws in psychology
In a recent episode of my podcast I stated that contrary to the
advocates
I don't think that law denotes anything particularly fundamental in
psychology (other than the fact that the author decided to
ostentatiously name his or her idea a law rather than a principle, a
theory or a conjecture).
Also, I may be wrong, but I think that Weber only had a fraction. It
One reason might be that Flynn's observations are restricted to one
specific situation, whereas Skinner's have been shown to generalize
across situations.
On Aug 12, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Why would these be laws and, say, the graphs associated with
Skinner's
Dear Tipsters
Wise counsel from Chris, who has the historical perspective on this
question.
I wonder if he or someone else can enlighten us if physics has a special
meaning for law?
Stuart
I don't think that law denotes anything particularly fundamental in
psychology (other than the fact
On Aug 12, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Why would these be laws and, say, the graphs associated with Skinner's
schedules of reinforcement, not be? Why are these laws and Flynn's
discoveries about the rise in intelligence an effect? (an effect of
what? time?)
Paul Brandon
Thanks Chris. I think you're right that arguing over whether we
should refer to psychological findings - even solidly replicatable
ones - as laws is not worth our time. It looks like the word law is
used too indescriminantly by scientists and non-scientists alike.
Michael
Michael Britt
So psychologists conclude there are no scientific laws (in psych?) in the sense
of established, reliable relationships, or that the word is meaningless in
psychology? I take it the latter is the popular consensus? A scientific law
or principle in psychology is the same as theory or
You are free to define it however you would like Gary. My point was only
that it has not been used in a consistent way, either in psychology, or
in the rest of natural science. So the question of why claim A is called
a law and claim 2 isn't turns out to be more of an fuzzy historical
question
On 12 Aug 2008 at 13:58, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Psychologists, sad to say, have often been a little over-reaching in
their assertions of certainty, and so have occasionally claimed laws in
an attempt to boost their scientific status.
Such is the case for the Yerkes-Dodson Law, which is
is
consistent across conditions—and I don’t think psychology has any such stable
relationships which ‘always hold’.
--Mike
--- On Tue, 8/12/08, Christopher D. Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Christopher D. Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [tips] Laws in psychology
To: Teaching
At 10:03 PM 8/12/2008, you wrote:
Surely there are laws in other fields; e.g.
Boyles law for gasses; the laws of
thermodynamics; the law of gravity; the inverse
square law of light. It would seem that a law
should be able to be defined and not at the whim
of whomever: Something like a
20 matches
Mail list logo
