FROM METHODOLOGICAL PLURALISM TO A DISCIPLINARY ORGANISM: THE CASE OF PSYCHOLOGY

Publication Type:

Language:

Transliteration of original Title: 
Ot «metodologicheskogo pljuralizma» k «disciplinarnomu organizmu»: sluchaj psihologii
Author(s): 
Vladimir Porus
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Issue number: 
No. 1 (Vol. 43)
Pages: 
5-18
Abstract: 

The article discusses approaches to the problem of “methodological pluralism” in psychology. Instead of hierarchy of “explanation levels”, essentially reduced to a certain fundamental level, the idea of a “topological system” of explanations interconnected in such a way that an experimental refutation of a hypothesis affects not only this hypothesis alone but more generally: the whole system of scientific psychological explanations which could not remain indifferent to such a refutation. Psychology while retaining its methodological pluralism would become a disciplinary organism with uniform “nervous system” reacting on results of empirical research.

Keywords: 
methodological pluralism, psychological explanation, psychological theory, philosophy of science
References: 

 

Bogen J., Woodward J. Saving the Phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 1988, vol. 97, № 3. P. 303-352.

Chalmers D. Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2 (3), 1995. P. 200-219.

Hacking I.  Representing and Intervening. Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge, Cambridge  University  Press,  1983.

Hempel K.G., Oppenheim P. Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science. 1948. № 15. P. 135 - 175.

Peirce Ch. S. The Collected Papers. Vol. 5. Cambr. (Mass.), 1965.

Arshinov V. I. Redukcionizm. Novaja filosofskaja jenciklopedija, t. III, M., 2001. S. 430.

Barabanshhikov V. A. Metody psihologicheskogo poznanija: sistemnyj vzgljad. Trudy Jaroslavskogo metodologicheskogo seminara. T. 3. Metody psihologii. Pod red. V. V. Novikova (gl. red.), I. N. Karickogo, V. V. Kozlova, V. A. Mazilova. Jaroslavl'. MAPN, 2005. S. 14-23.

Bikbov A. T. Disciplina nauchnaja. Jenciklopedija jepistemologii i filosofii nauki. M., «Kanon+», 2009.

Bor N. Atomy i chelovecheskoe poznanie. Bor N. Izbrannye nauchnye trudy. T. 2, M., «Nauka», 1971.

Vasiljuk F. E., Zinchenko V. P., Meshherjakov B.G., Petrovskij V. A., Pruzhinin B. I., Shhedrina T. G. Metodologija psihologii: problemy i perspektivy. M.,-SPb., «Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ», 2012.

Gejzenberg V. Shagi za gorizont. M., «Progress», 1987.

Dubrovskij D. I. Problema ideal'nogo. Sub’ektivnaja real'nost'. Izd. 2., M., «Kanon+»,  2002.

Zagidullin Zh.K. Osobennosti stroenija znanij v psihologii kak nauke: dis. ... kand. filos. nauk: 09:00:01: zashhishhena 18.01.2012: utv. 20.05.2013.

Kuznecova N. I. Neopoznannyj Fejerabend . Jepistemologija & filosofija nauki, 2005, t. III, № 1. S. 210-216.

Mirskij Je. M. Disciplina nauchnaja. Novaja filosofskaja jenciklopedija. T. 1. M., «Mysl'», 2000. S. 672-673;

Ogurcov A. P. Disciplinarnaja priroda nauki. M., «Nauka», 1985.

Porus V. N. Stil' nauchnogo myshlenija. Teorija poznanija. T.3. Poznanie kak istoricheskij process. M., «Mysl'», 1993. S. 225-262.

DOI: 
10.5840/eps201543124
Full Text: