Disunity in psychology and other sciences: The network or the block universe?

Journal of Mind and Behavior

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 31-44

  Viney, Wayne ^a  

^a Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION; PSYCHOLOGY; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

EID: 0029982673     PISSN: 02710137     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Appel, T.A. (1988). Organizing biology: The American Society of Naturalists and its "affiliated societies," 1883-1923. In R. Rainger, K.R. Benson, and J. Maienschem (Eds.), The American development of biology (pp. 87-120). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
2. Bacon, E (1960). The new organon and related writings (EH. Anderson, Ed.). New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Original work published 1620)
3. Barton, S. (1994). Chaos, self-organization, and psychology. American Psychologist, 49, 5-14.
4. Bridgman, P.W. (1955). Reflections of a physicist. New York: Philosophical Library.
5. Brožek, J. (1990). Disunity versus diversity. American Psychologist, 45, 983.
6. Brush, S.G (1974). Should the history of science be rated X? Science, 183, 1164-1172.
7. Capra, E (1988). The role of physics in the current change of paradigms. In R.F. Kitchener (Ed.), The world view of contemporary physics (pp. 144-155). New York: State University of New York Press.
8. Depew, D.J., and Weber, B.H. (Eds.). (1985). Evolution at a crossroads. The new biology and the new philosophy of science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
9. Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
10. Feyerabend, P.K. (1975). Against method. London: NLB.
11. Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos. Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin Inc.
12. Gould, S.J. (1995). Ladders and cones: Constraining evolution by canonical icons. In R.B. Silvers (Ed.), Hidden histories of science (pp. 37-67). New York: NYREV, Inc.
13. Green, C.D. (1992). Is unified positivism the answer to psychology's disunity. American Psychologist, 47, 1057-1058.
14. Hall, R. (1967). Monism and pluralism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy, 5, (pp. 363-365). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
15. Hartshorne, C. (1982). Science as the search for the hidden beauty of the world. In D.W. Curtin (Ed.), The aesthetic dimension of science. 1980 Nobel Conference (pp. 85-106). New York: Philosophical Library.
16. Hawking, S. (1993). Black holes and baby universes and other essays. New York: Bantam Books.
17. Hildebrand, J.H. (1957). Science in the making. New York: Columbia University Press.
18. James, W. (1975). Pragmatism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1907)
19. Kimble, G.A. (1989). Psychology from the standpoint of a generalist. American Psychologist, 44, 491-499.
20. Kimble, G.A. (1990). To be or ought to be? That is the question. American Psychologist, 45, 559-560.
21. Kincaid, H. (1990). Molecular biology and the unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 57, 575-593.
22. Kitcher, P. (1982). Abusing science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
23. Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (second edition). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
24. Medawar, P.B. (1984). The limits of science. New York: Harper and Row.
25. Plotinus. (1956). The enneads [S. MacKenna, Trans,]. London: Faber & Faber.
26. Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson & Co.
27. Rosenberg, A. (1994). Instrumental biology, or the disunity of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
28. Rychlak, J.F. (1994). Logical learning theory. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
29. Schneider, S.M. (1992). Can this marriage be saved? American Psychologist, 47, 1055-1057.
30. Staats, A.W., (1989). Unificationism: Philosophy for the modern disunified science of psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 2, 143-164.
31. Staats, A.W. (1991). Unified positivism and unification psychology: Fad or new field? American Psychologist, 46, 899-912.
32. Staats, A.W. (1993). Redefinitions of the science-practice relationship without a framework for unity will fail. American Psychologist, 48, 58-59.
33. Viney, W. (1989). The cyclops and the twelve-eyed toad: William James and the unity-disunity problem in psychology. American Psychologist, 44, 1261-1265.
34. Viney, W., King, C.L., and King, D.B. (1992). William James on the advantages of a pluralistic psychology. In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 91-100). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
35. Wand, B. (1993). The unity of the discipline: A challenge to the profession. Canadian Psychology, 34, 124-134.
36. Watson, J.D. (1968). The double helix. New York: New American Library.
37. Weiss, A.P. (1924). Behaviorism and behavior I, Psychological Review, 31, 32-50.