[lbo-talk] Sternberg article on Academically Adrift

Peter Fay peterrfay at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 17:53:46 PST 2011


On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Chuck Grimes <c123grimes at att.net> wrote:


>
> bothered by the basic assumption that psychology and or cognitive science
> can profile, measure, or even asses any kind of thinking. I assume this
> assumption is itself in deep contestation within the field.

I don't believe it is contested at all in psychology that 'thinking' (or at least answering - the behavioral outcome of thinking) can be assessed. If this cannot be measured, then it seems the tools to measure it (statistics) would be false - as well as its foundations - validity (content and construct validity), reliability (inter-rater and test-retest reliability) and probability itself.

Why would probability be any less valid when applied to psychology than to physics?



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list