ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2020
A Wittgensteinian Comment on "Psychology: A Giant with Feet of Clay" A Question from Research on Creativity.
Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2020. 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.
- The Influence of New Ventures' Work Environment and Innovation Behaviors on Corporate Performance.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2021Article
- From Clay Feet to New Psychology: Starting the Move.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present comment of the paper by Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro (2020) invests in the possible pragmatic entry of language in the problem of Psychology as a scientific enterprise, concerning the impossibility of consensus on its key constructs/concepts, and, consequently, the little cumulative capacity of the knowledge produced. Thus, the necessary discussion on the ambiguity, the cloudiness of the fundamental concepts of Psychology are reflected through the contributions of Wittgenstein II (2009) and the neopragmatism of Rorty (1999, 1995). Rorty offers a contemporary landscape on the purpose of knowledge production through his propositions on the relationship among truth, ethics and science in the humanities. The psychology of creativity is placed in the discussion as a field that well illustrate how the diversity of language games in Psychology reflects ethical perspectives in dealing with the phenomena, in this case related to the emergence of novelty, and the Rortian ironist reading on the relationship between objectivity and solidarity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32447538What 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.