Talk:Philosophy of psychology

Talk pages do not exist to express your personal opinions. If you wish to address the content of the article and how it can be improved, then criticize all you want. But do not criticize the subject of the article. That's what chat rooms are for. VoidTalker 03:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Philosophy of psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306212907/http://www.deastore.com/libro/il-mito-dei-fatti-una-massimiliano-aragona-ass-crossing-dialogues/9788890462009.html to http://www.deastore.com/libro/il-mito-dei-fatti-una-massimiliano-aragona-ass-crossing-dialogues/9788890462009.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Relational Frame Theory

This was on the philosophy of science page under the section on philosophy of psychology. It seemed a little too niche for that page and maybe even for the philosophy of psychology page (?) so I'm putting the language here and people can chime in.

A notable recent development in Philosophy of Psychology is Functional Contextualism or Contextual Behavioural Science (CBS). Functional Contextualism is a modern philosophy of science rooted in philosophical pragmatism and contextualism. It is most actively developed in behavioral science in general, the field of behavior analysis, and contextual behavioral science in particular (see the entry for the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science). Functional contextualism serves as the basis of a theory of language known as relational frame theory^[1] and its most prominent application, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT).^[2] It is an extension and contextualistic interpretation of B.F. Skinner's radical behaviorism first delineated by Steven C. Hayes which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events (including thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) with precision, scope, and depth, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context.

Vrie0006 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge with philosophy of mind?

I am neither a psychologist nor a philosopher, but I propose merging this article into philosophy of mind for the following reasons:

• Philosophy of mind captures essentially all of what psychology cares about. There might be some very disciplinary/research/practice-oriented issues of particular interest to psychology, but I do not see how this cannot be located as part of the Philosophy of mind-article.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a reference for Philosophy of mind, but not for philosophy of psychology.
• Philosophy of mind is a more developed article (B-class) whereas this is only start-class.
• Philosophy of mind does not link to this article.
• A reader without extensive prior knowledge in psychology (like me) will find it frustrating to read partially overlapping contents in the two articles, of which some of the issues listed in this article are so generic that they are better located elsewhere, e.g. "What conclusions can be drawn from null hypothesis tests?" in Philosophy of statistics. This article signals intellectual hair-splitting.
• I struggle to see how many more psychology-unique issues can be addressed here to justify a completely distinct article.
• Even if this article is absorbed under the mind article, there is still no doubt that this section can be about psychology and still direct to the mind-article.

Note that I am not stating that the contents are useless, only that the practical difference between the two articles are so miniscule for most readers that the contents will be better preserved and maintained with the Philosophy of mind-article. It would in fact increase the chance of the totality becoming a featured article. If you still decide to keep this article, at least narrow its scope so it does not repeat stuff regarding mind and rather refer to it. Sda030 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)