NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ993705
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2012-Dec
Pages: 2
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-0003-066X
EISSN: N/A
Psychology Is Still a Problematic Science and the Public Knows It
Teo, Thomas
American Psychologist, v67 n9 p807-808 Dec 2012
According to the philosophers of science Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), who were cited appropriately by Lilienfeld (see record 2011-12007-001) in his article, scientific explanations serve to answer "why" questions. Clarifying the logic of explanations in the sciences, they developed famously the notion that phenomena can be explained (using deduction) by means of general laws and by means of certain antecedent conditions. What is evident from all we know from the philosophy of science is that Lilienfeld offered us an interpretation. Although Lilienfeld provided good arguments and good reasons for the explanandum (e.g., why the public is skeptical toward psychology), citing studies and data, he clearly did not provide a deductive-nomological explanation in the sense of Hempel and Oppenheim or in the sense of the natural sciences.
American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Education Level: Adult Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A