证伪与实体假设理论的保护带

Steven C Hayes
{"title":"证伪与实体假设理论的保护带","authors":"Steven C Hayes","doi":"10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84177,"journal":{"name":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"Pages 35-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Falsification and the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories\",\"authors\":\"Steven C Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":84177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 35-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184904000058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184904000058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

Meehl的文章自相矛盾。在每个领域,他都认识到一些错误,然后倡导一种能产生更多错误的方法。他看到了证伪的问题,并在本质上提倡它的替代方案,即验证,但错误地声称这种策略仍然是证伪,并且在理论与其辅助和条件之间存在松散联系时是有用的。他承认加强理论与其辅助物和条件之间联系的价值已得到证实,但他拒绝这种做法,因为它不适用于他偏爱的理论。25年之后,还有更多的“缓慢进展”需要思考。是时候拆除围绕实体的保护带了——这些假设理论是Meehl的推理帮助创造出来的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Falsification and the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories

Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信