Quantification, Conceptual Reduction and Theoretical Under-determination in Psychological Science

Theory and Psychology (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
*********NOTE: This is my last academic paper unless I come up with a solution to the hard problem of consciousness (LOL) *********** I argue that academic psychology’s quest to achieve scientific respectability by reliance on quantification and objectification is deeply flawed. Specifically, psychological theory typically cannot support prognostication beyond the binary opposition of “effect present/effect absent”. Accordingly, the “numbers” assigned to experimental results amount to little more than affixing names (e.g., more than, less than) to the members of an ordered sequence of outcomes. This, in conjunction with the conceptual under-specification characterizing the targets of experimental inquiry, is, I contend, a primary reason why psychologists find it difficult to discriminate between competing, explanations of the effects of mind on behavior. Absent well-specified theory capable of enabling precise and detailed quantitative prediction, inferring underlying mental mechanisms from experimental outcomes becomes a difficult, if not impossible, task.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KLEQUA
Revision history
First archival date: 2020-01-22
Latest version: 16 (2020-07-15)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2020-01-22

Total views
58 ( #40,614 of 50,478 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
58 ( #9,560 of 50,478 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.