Publication

Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology

Burman, J. T., 2009, In : History and Philosophy of Psychology . 20, 1, p. 23-28

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

APA

Burman, J. T. (2009). Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology. History and Philosophy of Psychology , 20(1), 23-28.

Author

Burman, Jeremy Trevelyan. / Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology. In: History and Philosophy of Psychology . 2009 ; Vol. 20, No. 1. pp. 23-28.

Harvard

Burman, JT 2009, 'Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology', History and Philosophy of Psychology , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 23-28.

Standard

Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology. / Burman, Jeremy Trevelyan.

In: History and Philosophy of Psychology , Vol. 20, No. 1, 2009, p. 23-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademic

Vancouver

Burman JT. Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability? Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology. History and Philosophy of Psychology . 2009;20(1):23-28.


BibTeX

@article{66c50dc533854c8c82bbe992d99487b0,
title = "Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability?: Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology",
abstract = "Goertzen’s summaries of the literature on the “crisis of fragmentation” in Psychology have the potential to turn a century-long debate into a genuine puzzle for scientific investigation. However, even his most recent discussions have failed to provide any concrete tools to enable this. Instead, he offers a metaphor – “concinnity” (which he borrows from Giorgi but never adequately defines) – and celebrates liberal values as a way to finally resolve the problem. This is unconvincing; more rhetoric. But at least he points the way. And if it’s a way worth following, the discussion will need to be formalized. This process is begun here: first by defining the fundamental barrier (incommensurability), then by unpacking the metaphor (harmony as plurality), and finally by connecting the rhetoric to some models that could be used to produce testable hypotheses.",
author = "Burman, {Jeremy Trevelyan}",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "23--28",
journal = "History and Philosophy of Psychology",
issn = "1469-283X",
publisher = "The British Psychological Society",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Convergent plurality or basic incommensurability?

T2 - Toward the formalizing of Goertzen’s solution to the ‘crisis’ in psychology

AU - Burman, Jeremy Trevelyan

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Goertzen’s summaries of the literature on the “crisis of fragmentation” in Psychology have the potential to turn a century-long debate into a genuine puzzle for scientific investigation. However, even his most recent discussions have failed to provide any concrete tools to enable this. Instead, he offers a metaphor – “concinnity” (which he borrows from Giorgi but never adequately defines) – and celebrates liberal values as a way to finally resolve the problem. This is unconvincing; more rhetoric. But at least he points the way. And if it’s a way worth following, the discussion will need to be formalized. This process is begun here: first by defining the fundamental barrier (incommensurability), then by unpacking the metaphor (harmony as plurality), and finally by connecting the rhetoric to some models that could be used to produce testable hypotheses.

AB - Goertzen’s summaries of the literature on the “crisis of fragmentation” in Psychology have the potential to turn a century-long debate into a genuine puzzle for scientific investigation. However, even his most recent discussions have failed to provide any concrete tools to enable this. Instead, he offers a metaphor – “concinnity” (which he borrows from Giorgi but never adequately defines) – and celebrates liberal values as a way to finally resolve the problem. This is unconvincing; more rhetoric. But at least he points the way. And if it’s a way worth following, the discussion will need to be formalized. This process is begun here: first by defining the fundamental barrier (incommensurability), then by unpacking the metaphor (harmony as plurality), and finally by connecting the rhetoric to some models that could be used to produce testable hypotheses.

UR - http://cpahpp.ca/archives/

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 23

EP - 28

JO - History and Philosophy of Psychology

JF - History and Philosophy of Psychology

SN - 1469-283X

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 35731025