Talk:Philosophy of science

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

Relational frame theory

This paragraph on philosophy of psychology seems out of place to me. It would appear to be a niche issue with adherents among a small contingent of psychotherapists, and is not warranted on the general philosophy of science page. It is difficult to follow and is not referenced.

A notableTemplate:By whom? recent development in Philosophy of Psychology is Functional Contextualism or Contextual Behavioural Science (CBS). Functional Contextualism is a modern philosophy of science rooted in philosophical pragmatism and contextualism. It is most actively developed in behavioral science in general, the field of behavior analysis, and contextual behavioral science in particular (see the entry for the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science). Functional contextualism serves as the basis of a theory of language known as relational frame theory^[1] and its most prominent application, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT).^[2] It is an extension and contextualistic interpretation of B.F. Skinner's radical behaviorism first delineated by Steven C. Hayes which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events (including thoughts, feelings, and behaviors) with precision, scope, and depth, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context.

Perhaps editors on this page prefer to have a long article with many niche components. But I thought I'd flag it and, depending on responses, relegate it to a more specialized page. Vrie0006 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Article issues and classification.

Greetings. I didn't look at the article's history but this article fails the B-class criteria #1 with "citation needed" tags from 2017 and 2018. There are unsourced sentences and paragraphs and added unsourced sentences after an inline citation. There are also "weasel-worded phrases from October 2017" and 2019. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

{{Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Philosophy of science/1}}

does Bayesian interpretation of Science make sense here?

It is arguable that science operates like a Bayesian process. Although I am not sure about how deep the phil literature about bayes and science goes. 103.171.118.111 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

See Bayesian inference. Remsense诉 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)