Does interpretation in psychology differ from interpretation in natural science?

Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 19-37

  Martin, Jack ^a   Sugarman, Jeff ^a  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Interpretation in psychology; Interpretation in science; Interpretation in social science

Indexed keywords

EID: 61849091962     PISSN: 00218308     EISSN: 14685914     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00394.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1959. Intention. Oxford, England : Blackwell.
2. Bohman, J. 1991. New Philosophy of Science: Problems of Indeterminacy. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
3. Bunge, M. 1998. Social Science under Debate. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
4. Cooper, R. 2004. Why Hacking is wrong about Human Kinds. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 73 85.
5. Gadamer, H.-G. 1995. Truth and Method (J. Weinsheimer D.G. Marshall, Trans 2nd, rev. ed.). New York : Continuum Original work published 1960)
6. Greenwood, J. 1991. Relations and Representations: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Psychological Science. London : Routledge.
7. Hacking, I. 1995. Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory. Princeton, NJ : University of Princeton Press.
8. Hacking, I. 2006a, February 17. Natural Kinds: Rosy dawn, Scholastic Twilight. Paper Presented to the Royal Institute of Philosophy. London, UK.
9. Hacking, I. 2006b, April 11. Kinds of People: Moving Targets. The Tenth British Academy Lecture. London, UK.
10. Hacker, P.M.S. 2007. Human Nature: The Categorical Framework. Oxford, England : Blackwell.
11. Harré, R. 2000. One thousand years of Philosophy. Oxford : Blackwell.
12. Haslam, N.O. 1998. Natural Kinds, Human Kinds, and Essentialism. Social Research, 65, 291 314.
13. Jansz, J. van Drunen, P. (Eds.). 2004. A Social History of Psychology. Oxford, England : Blackwell.
14. Kuhn, T. 1991. The Natural and the Human Sciences. In J.F. Bohman, D.R. Hiley R. Shusterman (Eds.), The Interpretive turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture (pp. 17 24). Ithaca, NY : Cornell University Press.
15. Martin, M. 1994. Taylor on Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. In M. Martin L.C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 267 286). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
16. Rose, N. 1996. Inventing ourselves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
17. Smith, N.H. 2002. Charles Taylor: Meaning, Morals and Modernity. Cambridge, England : Polity.
18. Taylor, C. 1985a. Interpretation and the Sciences of Man. In C. Taylor, Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2 (pp. 15 57). Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
19. Taylor, C. 1985b. Self-interpreting Animals. In C. Taylor, Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers 1 (pp. 45 76). Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
20. Taylor, C. 1985c. Neutrality in Political Science. In C. Taylor, Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2 (pp. 58 90). Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
21. Taylor, C. 1985d. Peaceful Coexistence in Psychology. In C. Taylor, Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers 1 (pp. 117 138). Cambridge, England : Cambridge University Press.
22. Yalowitz, S. 1997. Rationality and the Argument for Anomalous Monism. Philosophical Studies, 87, 235 238.
23. Wittgenstein, L. 1953. Philosophical Investigations (G.E.M. Anscombe, Trans Oxford, England : Blackwell.