Person, psychologist, and psychology suspended in a phase 1 science

Abstract

Is a psychology of the “person” a science? An art? Or is it a case of a “phase 1 science”—with its own logical rules and with a continuous character of changeability? Can it be any other than this, if the concept of a psychological person is always derived from a particular and always subject to its changeability? In a suspended phase 1 science, the psychologist’s role as a person, who is a thinker, is central. The psychologist’s thinking about the concept of the person is continuously engaged. It remains open to re-focus and to changes in its relation to other concepts and to target phenomena. Changes in the psychologist’s thinking keep discovery a dynamic process; yet move psychological concepts closer to accommodating scientific goals. A logical framework, which can accommodate this discovery mode, can achieve two contrary goals: changeability versus increased accommodation of scientific goals of sharpening hypotheses.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.