Talk:Operationalization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Operationalization, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Merger with Operational definition?
No. Bridgman's philosophy separate from an operational definition which has a broader use. --Thomasmeeks 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- No.Tstrobaugh 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Bridgmans idea is called operational definition (and he coined it) and operationalization is merely the process of turning concepts safely defined using operational definitions. Bridgmans philosophy is not more narrow than his ideas, obviously. iNic 12:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, merge I cannot say that I know very much about the subject, but I think that the concepts are extremely closely related. Andries 12:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, merge But I would rename the merged item as "Operationalism" (with redirects for the other terms), and explain that it is a broader topic than that laid out by Bridgman, which it is. I suspect Bridgman himself would approve. He didn't set forth the final exposition of the topic, and wouldn't claim to own the word. Indeed, the idea to which he applied a label long predates his discussion of it. With the concurrence of others, I am willing to combine the articles, and bring out the antecedents. --Jon Roland 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I support this. Operationalism is the best title for a merge. But in what sense is the idea broader today? The idea is the same even though the application is broader today. I didn't say he owned the words, I said that he coined the words as he explained this philosophy for the first time ever. And who predated Bridgman according to you? iNic 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The idea is older than Bridgman. One can find it implicit in the writings of William James, and back to the utilitarians, and even to Francis Bacon, with a little stretch. The unconfirmed rumor is that the term was in use among Bridgman's circle of acquaintances before he published. However, we don't need to argue precedence here. It is an analytic approach to discussion of the subject that is broader than Bridgman. That should be sufficient to use the term in the broader sense than he used it. --Jon Roland 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the broader, looser and simpler idea that we should clearly define what we talk about in scientific matters is older than Bridgman, of course. It's connected to the Age of Enlightenment in physics (and later in other fields of science). But Bridgman's idea is much more subtle than that. The only forerunner to Bridgman is Einstein whose methodology Bridgman turned into a general philosophy. However, Einstien didn't realize he was using a new methodological philosophy; he thought he was simply implementing the philosophy of Ernst Mach. But Mach rejected Eintein's thinking. And even though Mach was not only a heavy influence to Einstein but also to the highly influential logical positivists, the positivists nevertheless rejected Bridgman's operationalism. This shows that Bridgman's philosophy was new and highly controversial at the time. iNic 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- However, when Bridgman's operationalism later became a buzzword even in other sciences, like psychology and the social sciences, the concept shifted meaning and became simply the label for the general cry for clearly defined concepts in those sciences, i.e., the same kind of battle that Francis Bacon and others fought during the enlightenment when it comes to physics and alchemy. This important distiction has to be stressed in the article(s) I think; that this concept originated with Bridgman but later his "operationalism" has become the label for quite a different struggle outside the natural sciences. iNic 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree with the merger on the basis that there can be two different definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.66.110 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't agree. Operationalization is a process, not necessarily ending with a closed definition, [User:SarahPhilipson] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPhilipson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Who's Chris?
Who's the Chris cited at the end of the third paragraph?
- Probably the name of the vandal himself. iNic 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gender
It's painful for a physicist to realize that what she always thought was one concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts
Gratuitous use of the female pronoun is just as annoying as gratuitous use of the male.
How about "It's painful for a physicist to realize that what appears to be a single concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts"?
I'd change it myself except that all my edits seem to be undone these days. 84.9.82.184 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1950's social sciences
Should be more about the 1950's social-science meaning of "operationalism", which claimed that unless you could lay out a series of steps by which something could be concretely measured, then it simply didn't exist scientifically. Operationalism was related to the concepts of behaviorism and logical positivism which prevailed at that time. Also, the view was sometimes held that it wasn't really adequate just to show that a theory was consistent with observations -- it was also desirable or necessary to show a series of steps by which the theory could be directly derived from the observations (this was part of the meaning of "biuniqueness" in linguistics). AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
