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 wrote: > One reason might be that Flynn's observations are restricted to one > specific situation, whereas Skinner's have been shown to generalize > across situations. > > I think you misread my message, Paul. Neither Skinner's nor Flynn's work are usually called "laws." To reiterate my main point, however, I don't think there is much point to this distinction. 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 else, I think the term "law" has to do with the scientific fashion at the time such claims are first enunciated. For instance, Newtonians were attempting to challenge the hegemony of "Divine Law" and so countered with "Scientific Law," but by the time Darwin was accepted, and Einstein had come along, scientists had pretty much a become fallibilists, and so "theory" seemed more appropriate to (the public presentation of) that sort of epistemic humility. 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. And we can all see how well that has worked... :-) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Part of respecting another person is taking the time to criticise his or her views." - Melissa Lane, in a /Guardian/ obituary for philosopher Peter Lipton ================================= --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
