Should psychology follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences? Introduction to the debate

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Theory & Psychology Pub Date : 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/09593543241257916
Markus Eronen, Lisa Osbeck, Kieran C. O’Doherty
{"title":"Should psychology follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences? Introduction to the debate","authors":"Markus Eronen, Lisa Osbeck, Kieran C. O’Doherty","doi":"10.1177/09593543241257916","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This debate issue centers on the question of whether psychology should follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences. Answers to this question are often implicitly assumed but rarely explicitly debated among psychologists. This issue contains eight invited contributions by scholars whom we anticipated would have strong and divergent positions on the question. The articles present a broad range of perspectives, ranging from phenomenological psychology to cognitive neuroscience. They broadly line up with a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, four authors favoring a “yes” and four authors a “no” response, although nearly all authors advance more nuanced positions that challenge a simple classification. In this introduction, we first discuss the historical roots of the question and our motivation behind this specific formulation of it. Then we briefly summarize the contributions and place them in a broader context.","PeriodicalId":47640,"journal":{"name":"Theory & Psychology","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory & Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543241257916","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This debate issue centers on the question of whether psychology should follow the methods and principles of the natural sciences. Answers to this question are often implicitly assumed but rarely explicitly debated among psychologists. This issue contains eight invited contributions by scholars whom we anticipated would have strong and divergent positions on the question. The articles present a broad range of perspectives, ranging from phenomenological psychology to cognitive neuroscience. They broadly line up with a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, four authors favoring a “yes” and four authors a “no” response, although nearly all authors advance more nuanced positions that challenge a simple classification. In this introduction, we first discuss the historical roots of the question and our motivation behind this specific formulation of it. Then we briefly summarize the contributions and place them in a broader context.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理学是否应该遵循自然科学的方法和原则?辩论简介
本辩论议题的核心是心理学是否应遵循自然科学的方法和原则。对于这个问题的答案,心理学家们往往会暗自假设,却很少进行明确的辩论。本期特邀八位学者撰文,我们预计他们在这个问题上会有强烈而不同的立场。这些文章提出了从现象心理学到认知神经科学的广泛观点。尽管几乎所有作者都提出了更细致入微的立场,对简单的分类提出了挑战,但他们对这个问题的回答大体上是 "是 "或 "否",其中四位作者倾向于 "是",四位作者倾向于 "否"。在本引言中,我们首先讨论了这一问题的历史渊源以及我们提出这一具体问题的动机。然后,我们简要总结了这些贡献,并将其置于更广阔的背景中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theory & Psychology
Theory & Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Theory & Psychology is a fully peer reviewed forum for theoretical and meta-theoretical analysis in psychology. It focuses on the emergent themes at the centre of contemporary psychological debate. Its principal aim is to foster theoretical dialogue and innovation within the discipline, serving an integrative role for a wide psychological audience. Theory & Psychology publishes scholarly and expository papers which explore significant theoretical developments within and across such specific sub-areas as: cognitive, social, personality, developmental, clinical, perceptual or biological psychology.
期刊最新文献
Facing up to the hardest problem: The human information field and the ontological primacy of subjective consciousness Epistemic inequality in the digital era: Unpacking biases in digital mental health Making sense of signs: Readjusting William Stern’s personological value theory The Gibsonian movement and Koffka’s Principles of Gestalt Psychology Wise thoughts on phronesis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1