Talk:Functionalism (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
The Definition section is very misleading in starting out with irrelevant ideas (the innateness of mental capacities and characteristics), and ending with Block's correct definition. Innateness is no part of functionalism, since the latter is neutral on this issue. The term "functionalism" derives from the mathematical notion of function (from inputs to output), not the ordinary one (purpose).
Does anyone know how to capitalise "psychology" in the title of this article?--Neuropsychology 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I have updated this page so that it is consistent with what functionalism actually is in reference to psychology and cognitive science and the problems with it. --Neuropsychology 22:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the information presented on the page is actually structuralism since Wunt and Titchener introduced structuralism. Functionalism is introduced by William James.
[edit] Two senses of "Functionalism"
As some commentators here note, there are at least two senses of "functionalism" in psychology and cognitive science. In one sense, "functionalism" refers to a movement in psychology which is about 100 years old, dates back to James, and is critiqued, e.g., by Watson (see http://www.cas.buffalo.edu/classes/psy/segal/4212001/Functionalism.htm). Its contrast is Titchener's structuralism. I believe this is what Grinning Fool and several others here are referring to. In another sense, "functionalism" refers to a philosophical position which dates back to Chomsky and Putnam and Fodor is about 50 years old (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/). This is what most on this page seem to be referring to. At least that's my understanding. Somehow the distinction needs to be flagged in the article. And I agree that the functionalism in phil-mind and current functionalism in psychology articles overlap. Jyoshimi 04:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
perhaps a merge between this article and Functionalism (philosophy of mind)? 71.250.15.252 00:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am not aware of a usage of the word "Functionalism" in psychology independant of that used in the philosopy of mind. This article seems to specfically discuss machine functionalism, which is covered in the philiosophy of mind article. Hence the proposed merge. Keithmahoney 19:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am an experimental cognitive scientist and this word is used to describe the current metatheory, that forms the backdrop to research in cognition and psychology. Although it shares a lot with philosophy of mind this article is more focused on the psychological/cognitive implications of functionalism - something that is not dealt with by the philosophy of mind (POM) article. I think it should either stay separate or a special section be added within the POM article specifically relating to fucntionalism's relevance to psych/cognition.--137.222.120.32 16:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed; functionalism was one of the first schools of thought in psychology, and very influential in its time. Though there seems to be little actual information on what functionalism is here (perhaps I'll fill it in a bit during the week), only criticisms and discussion over it, it is not directly related to the POM article.--Grinning Fool 07:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "False conclusions"
I don't understand what is meant by "inductive functionalism is problematic because of the risk of false conclusions." This phrase needs a little bit of explaining. If it were exactly what it sounds like I don't think functionalism would be alone in that regard. Recury 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
