What Is an Immature Science?

References

• Carnap, R. 1950. “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 4: 20–40.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H₂O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R. 2008. “The Possibility of a Pluralist Cognitive Science.” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 20: 155–179. doi: 10.1080/09528130802319078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goertzen, J. R. 2010. “Dialectical Pluralism: A Theoretical Conceptualization of Pluralism in Psychology.” New Ideas in Psychology 28: 201–209. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, C. D. 1992. “Is Unified Positivism the Answer to Psychology’s Disunity?” American Psychologist 47: 1057–1058. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gruber, T. 1993. “A Translation Approach to Portable Ontology Specifications.” Knowledge Acquisition 5: 199–220. doi: 10.1006/knac.1993.1008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harré, R., and G. Gillett. 1994. The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Henriques, G. R. 2004. “Psychology Defined.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 60: 1207–1221. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20061
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilardi, S. S., and D. Feldman. 2001. “The Cognitive Neuroscience Paradigm: A Unifying Metatheoretical Framework for the Science and Practice of Clinical Psychology.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 57: 1067–1088. doi: 10.1002/jclp.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellert, S. H., H. E. Longino, and C. K. Waters, eds. 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kukla, A. 1992. “Unification as a Goal for Psychology.” American Psychologist 47: 1054–1055. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1054.b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunkel, J. H. 1992. “The Units of Unification: Theories or Propositions?” American Psychologist 47: 1058–1059. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1968. “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69: 149–186. doi: 10.1093/aristotelian/69.1.149
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. 1996. “Subjects, Power and Knowledge: Description and Prescription in Feminist Philosophies of Science.” In Feminism and Science, edited by E. F. Keller and H. E. Longino, 264–279. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNally, R. J. 1992. “Disunity in Psychology: Chaos or Speciation?” American Psychologist 47: 1054. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1054.a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meehl, P. E. 1978. “Theoretical Risks and Tabular Asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the Slow Progress of Soft Psychology.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 46: 806–834. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, R. B. 1992. “Introduction to the Philosophy of Clinical Psychology.” In The Restoration of Dialogue: Readings in the Philosophy of Clinical Psychology, edited by R. B. Miller, 1–28. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, S. D. 2002. “Integrative Pluralism.” Biology and Philosophy 17: 55–70. doi: 10.1023/A:1012990030867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, S. D. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neill, P. 2002. “Tectonic Change: The Qualitative Paradigm in Psychology.” Canadian Psychology 43: 190–194. doi: 10.1037/h0086915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palermo, D. S. 1971. “Is a Scientific Revolution Taking Place in Psychology?” Science Studies 1: 135–155. doi: 10.1177/030631277100100202
   Google Scholar
• Poldrack, R. A., A. Kittur, D. Kalar, E. Miller, C. Seppa, Y. Gil, D. Stott Parker, F. W. Sabb, and R. M. Bilde. 2011. “The Cognitive Atlas: Toward a Knowledge Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience.” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 5: 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00017
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rand, K. L., and S. S. Ilardi. 2005. “Toward a Consilient Science of Psychology.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61: 7–20. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. M. 1992. “Can This Marriage Be Saved?” American Psychologist 47: 1055–1057. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.47.8.1055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1977. “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories, edited by F. Suppe, 2nd ed., 518–599. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1985. “Objectivity, Rationality and Scientific Change.” In PSA 1984: Proceedings of the 1984 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, edited by P. D. Asquith and P. Kitcher, vol. 2, 637–663. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.
   Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1986a. “External and Internal Factors in the Development of Science.” Science and Technology Studies 4 (1): 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1986b. “Replies to Carroll and Turner.” Science and Technology Studies 4 (1): 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Shapere, D. 1987. “Method in the Philosophy of Science and Epistemology: How to Inquire About Inquiry and Knowledge.” In The Process of Science: Contemporary Philosophical Approaches to Understanding Scientific Practice, edited by N. J. Nersessian, 1–39. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Shapin, S. 1992. “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism–Internalism Debate.” History of Science 30: 333–369. doi: 10.1177/007327539203000401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shirer, W. R., S. Ryali, E. Rykhlevskaia, V. Menon, and M. D. Greicius. 2012. “Decoding Subject-driven Cognitive States with Whole-brain Connectivity Patterns.” Cerebral Cortex 22: 158–165. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr099
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smythe, W. E., and S. A. McKenzie. 2010. “A Vision of Dialogical Pluralism in Psychology.” New Ideas in Psychology 28: 227–234. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staats, A. W. 1983. Psychology’s Crisis of Disunity: Philosophy and Methods for a Unified Science. New York: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Staats, A. W. 1991. “Unified Positivism and Unification Psychology: Fad or New Field?” American Psychologist 46: 899–912. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.46.9.899
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staats, A. W. 1999. “Unifying Psychology Requires New Infrastructure, Theory, Method, and a Research Agenda.” Review of General Psychology 3: 3–13. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.3
   Google Scholar
• Staats, A. W. 2004. “The Disunity–Unity Dimension.” American Psychologist 59: 273–273. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.4.273a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., and E. L. Grigorenko. 2001. “Unified Psychology.” American Psychologist 56: 1069–1079. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1069
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. 1972. Human Understanding. Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Uttal, W. R. 2001. The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Von Eckardt, B. 1993. What Is Cognitive Science? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Watanabe, T. 2010. “Metascientific Foundations for Pluralism in Psychology.” New Ideas in Psychology 28: 253–262. doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wimsatt, W. C. 1994. “The Ontology of Complex Systems: Levels of Organization, Perspectives, and Causal Thickets.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20 (Suppl.): 207–274. doi: 10.1080/00455091.1994.10717400
   Google Scholar
• Yarkoni, T., R. A. Poldrack, T. E. Nichols, D. C. Van Essen, and T. D. Wager. 2011. “Large-scale Automated Synthesis of Human Functional Neuroimaging Data.” Nature Methods 8: 665–670. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar