These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Bridgman, yes. But what are defined operationally are variables - defined in terms of their measurement operations - not entities, such as a molecule. In Einsteinian physics durations and lengths are precisely defined in terms of observations of clocks and rulers. Martin On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:59 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > So far as I know we are indebted to Percy Bridgman for the idea of the requirement of "opeational definition" of concepts. > http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/bridgman.htm > If you search for "operation" in Einstein's reply to criticisms (from Bridgman): > http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1940s/reply.htm > I think this is a view which the Marxist Leontyev would agree with. > Molecules existed in chemical and physical theory long before one could speak of an "operational definition" of a molecule. > > Andy > > Huw Lloyd wrote: >> On 9 August 2013 00:26, Martin Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote: >> >> >>> Huw, >>> >>> I dont know how literally you're using the term, but the notion of >>> "operational definition" is very much part of theory of science of logical >>> positivism. I don't think you're going to find much of that in Leontyev. >>> >>> Martin >> I mean simply how the experimental paradigm(s) reflects the concept. >> >> Seems odd to eschew a phrase that yields additional ways of knowing, e.g. >> a working definition, a test based definition, conceptual, etc. >> >> Best, >> Huw > > >