|
| Conceptual Foundations of Behavior Analysis |
| Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
| 3:30 PM–4:20 PM |
| Independence East |
| Area: TPC |
| Chair: Christopher S. McDonough (Hawthorne Country Day School) |
| |
| Justifying The Principle of Parsimony: A Critical Review |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| TED SCHONEBERGER (Stanislaus County Office of Education) |
| |
| Abstract: According to the principle of parsimony, when choosing among otherwise equivalent scientific explanations (hypotheses, theories), choose the simplest one. Commonly attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam, this principle continues to be invoked within the contemporary sciences, including behavior analysis. However, justifications for its employment vary. Quine (1966) maintained that parsimonious hypotheses are more probable, while Popper (1959) argued that they are more easily falsified. On the other hand, Sober (1988) argued that there can be no global justification for its use; deciding whether or not to invoke parsimony depends on the particular hypothesis being considered. In this paper, these and other justifications for invoking parsimony shall be critically examined. |
| |
| Inductive & Deductive Approaches to Scientific Inquiry |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| CHRISTOPHER S. MCDONOUGH (Hawthorne Country Day School), David Bicard (Hawthorne Country Day School), Hirofumi Shimizu (Hawthorne Country Day School) |
| |
| Abstract: Many philosophers of science distinguish between two approaches to scientific inquiry: inductive and deductive. What is the difference between these approaches? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and how do they interact in terms of scientific method? This paper will define inductive and deductive approaches to scientific inquiry as they relate to applied behavior analysis. The views of thinkers who have made significant contributions to these approaches (e.g., Bacon, Mach, Pierce, & Hull) will be discussed. |
| |
|
| |