Titlebook: Clinical Psychology and the Philosophy of Science; William O‘Donohue Book 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013 APA‘s Et

圓桶

Post-Modernism, Social Constructionism, and the Science Wars,st few decades. Many of these views are quite controversial on a number of dimensions—sometimes the criticism is that these views are meaningless or at a minimum obscurantist (see the so-called Sokal affair that will be discussed below); sometimes the claim is that they are unfairly and unduly incen

上坡

旅行路線

Book 2013 science.? When logical positivism gained currency in the 1930s, psychologists were among the most avid readers of what these philosophers had to say about science. Part of the critique of Skinner’s radical behaviorism and thus behavior therapy was that it relied on, and thus was logically dependent

Indict

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-89593-6xamined. The following major questions are addressed: What were Kuhn’s investigative methods? What are his views of science? What exactly do Kuhn’s conclusions about science mean? How does Kuhn rely on psychology? and, What does Kuhn have to say about psychology.

吝嗇性

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00091-2diary—for example, a prominent feminist critic of science Harding (.) has called Newton’s classic . “a rape manual” because “science is the male rape of female nature”; and of course sometimes the criticism is simply that they are wrong.

PON

synchronous

DIS

辭職

Epistemology and Logical Positivism,lems of epistemology. In most contemporary views, epistemology and the philosophy of science are highly interrelated because science attempts to produce knowledge—and for many, it has been a unique ability to produce knowledge.

apiary