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 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 was only after Fechner integrated over it that came to be called a (logarithmic) "law." In any case, the phenomenon it describes turned out not to be terribly lawful. It was superseded by "Stevens' (power) law," which does not terribly accurately capture the phenomenon either. As for Thorndike's "law," it is only the age-old principle of hedonism restated in a quasi-behavioral form. 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?) I think "effect" was chosen rather than "law" mainly because it alliterates rather nicely with "Flynn." Let us not mistake the trappings of science for the real thing. Regards, Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ phone: 416-736-2100 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 ============================= Michael 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 > psychology which are referred to as "laws" - Thorndike's Law of Effect > and Weber's law. Fellow tipster Blaine Peden reminded me that there > are some more that he could think of - the Gestalt laws of perception, > Emmert's Law, and Herrstein's Matching Law. We may argue as to what > constitutes a "law" in psychology and whether the aforementioned > belong in that definition, but Blaine had a good suggestion: is anyone > in TIPS aware of any other laws in psychology? I'd be happy to amend > my podcast on this topic > (http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2008/07/21/episode-64-a-scientist-goes-loo king-for-a-self-help-book/). > > > Thanks, > > Michael > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
