ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2010
The machine paradigm and alternative approaches in cognitive science.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Social neuroscience: undoing the schism between neurology and psychiatry.Social neuroscience · 2018Review
- Theories and theorizers: a contextual approach to theories of cognition.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2011Article
- Neurodynamics of mind: the arrow illusion of conscious intentionality as downward causation.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent paper called To think human out of the machine paradigm, it is stated that psychological science operates within a machine paradigm that is committed to mechanical causality. In addition, it is emphasizes the epistemological and methodological limitations of explanations based in deterministic mechanics and instead argues for the need of an 'organic paradigm' that takes into consideration psychological processes such as subjectivity, inter-subjectivity, and agency. Although there is no doubt that much psychological science has operated under a machine paradigm, we argue that recent psychological research is pursued using a wide variety of approaches and with an absence of a partially integrated meta-theoretical corpus. The present situation looks more like a Tower of Babel of epistemological approaches and empirical programs. The reconsideration of the organic paradigm and an explicitly addressed epistemological framework could constitute a step forward and lead to an explanatory pluralism built on greater dialogue within the psychological sciences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20306344What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.