Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:50:47.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Research and Humean Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Siri Naess  and
Arne Naess
Siri Naess
Affiliation:
Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities
Arne Naess
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article the question is raised whether philosophers, studying Humean problems, might profit from the empirical findings of contemporary psychology. A text from Hume's Treatise of Human Nature is analyzed in an attempt to find out (1) whether his problems are open to empirical testing. Each sentence in the text is classified into normative, declarative, analytic and synthetic. A prevalence of declarative, synthetic sentences is found. Further, the question is examined (2) whether contemporary empirical psychology has contributed to the testing of Hume's hypotheses. The answer is affirmative for some of the statements, and it is suggested that philosophical discussions around these problems should not be carried out as if psychological research were irrelevant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 134 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © 1959 by Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Boring, E. G.: A History of Experimental Psychology, N. Y., 1929.Google Scholar
2. Bruner, J. S. et al.: A Study of Thinking, N. Y., 1956.Google Scholar
3. Burtt, H. E.: Applied Psychology, N. Y., 1948.10.1037/11518-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Deutsche, J. M.: The development of children's concepts of causal relations, Univ. of Minn., Inst. of Child Welfare Monogr., No. 13, 330, 331, 1937.Google Scholar
5. Duncker, K.: Zur Psychologie des Produktiven Denkens, 1935.Google Scholar
6. Ebbinghaus, H.: Über das Gedächtnis, Leipzig, 1885.Google Scholar
7. Heidbreder, Bensley, and Ivy, : Journal of Psychology, 25, 1948.Google Scholar
8. Hull, C. L.: Principles of Behavior, N. Y., 1943.Google Scholar
9. Hull, C. L.: Psychological Monographs, 28, 1920.10.1037/h0093130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Koffka, K.: Zur Analyse der Vorstellungen und ihrer Gesetze, 1912.Google Scholar
11. Michotte, A.: La perception de la causalité, Louvain, 1946.Google Scholar
12. Perky, C. W.: American Journal of Psychology, 21, 422–452, 1910.10.2307/1413350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Piaget, J.: La causalité physique chez l'enfant, Paris, 1927.Google Scholar
14. Schaub, A. de Va.: American Journal of Psychology, 22, 346–368, 1911.10.2307/1413146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Smoke, K. L.: Psychological Monographs, 42, 191, 1932.10.1037/h0093297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Smoke, K. L.: Concept Formation, in Encyclopedia of Psychology, ed. Ph. E. Harriman, N. Y., 1946.Google Scholar
17. Stevens, S. S. ed., Handbook of Experimental Psychology, N. Y., 1953.Google Scholar
18. Stolurow, L. M.: Readings in Learning, N. Y., 1935.Google Scholar
19. Tolman, E. C.: Psychological Review, 55, 189–208, 1948.10.1037/h0061626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Wertheimer, M.: Psychologische Forschung, 1, 47–58, 1922.10.1007/BF00410385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Woodworth, R. S.: Experimental Psychology, N. Y., 1938.Google Scholar
22. Woodworth, R. S. and Schlosberg, H.: Experimental Psychology, N. Y., 1954.Google Scholar
23. Yela, Mariano: La percepcion de la causalidad a distancia, Rev. Psicol. gen. apl., 8, Madrid, 1958.Google Scholar