References
- Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics ( M. Ostwald, Trans., 350BCE). Prentice Hall.
- Arnhart, L. (1998). Darwinian natural right: The biological ethics of human nature. SUNY Press.
- Berman, J. S., & Reich, C. M. (2010). Investigator allegiance and the evaluation of psychotherapy outcome research. European Journal of Psychotherapy and Counselling, 12(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13642531003637775
- Boehm, C. (2008). Moral origins: The evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. Basic.
- Brinkmann, S. (2009). Facts, values, and the naturalistic fallacy in psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.10.001
- Comer, J. S., & Kendall, P. C. (2013). Methodology, design, and evaluation in psychotherapy research. In M. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 21–48). Wiley.
- Cushman, P. (1991). Ideology obscured: Political uses of the self in Daniel Stern’s infant. American Psychologist, 46(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.3.206
- Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of psychological research. Cambridge University Press.
- Fowers, B. J. (2010). Instrumentalism and psychology: Beyond using and being used. Theory & Psychology, 20(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309346080
- Fowers, B. J. (2012). An Aristotelian framework for the human good. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 32(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025820
- Gorski, P. S. (2013). Beyond the fact/value distinction: Ethical naturalism and the social sciences. Sociology, 50(3), 543–553. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-013-9709-2
- Haack, S. (1996). Science as social—Yes and no. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 79–93). Kluwer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1742-2_5
- Hume, D. (1749/1978). A treatise of human nature. (P. H. Niddich, Ed.). Clarendon.
- Kendler, H. H. (2002). Psychology and ethics: Interactions and conflicts. Philosophical Psychology, 15(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0951508021000042030
- Laudan, L. (2004). The epistemic, the cognitive, and the social. In P. Machamer & G. Walters (Eds.), Science, values, and objectivity (pp. 14–23). University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Longino, H. E. (2004). How values can be good for science. In P. Machamer & G. Walters (Eds.), Science, values, and objectivity (pp. 127–142). University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. At the University Press.
- Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, truth and history. Cambridge University Press.
- Putnam, H. (2004). The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays. Harvard University Press.
- Richardson, F. C., Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice. Jossey-Bass.
- Searle, J. (1964). How to derive “ought” from “is”. The Philosophical Review, 73(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2183201
- Shapin, S. (1995). Here and everywhere: Sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology, 21(1), 289–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001445
- Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Sage.
- Smith, C. (2015). To flourish or destruct: A personalist theory of human goods, motivations, failure, and evil. University of Chicago Press.
- Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
- Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. Harvard University Press.
- Tjeltveit, A. C. (2015). Appropriately addressing psychological scientists’ inescapable cognitive and moral values. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35(1), 35–52.