| 释义 |
operationalism|ɒpəˈreɪʃənəlɪz(ə)m|
[f. prec. + -ism.]
A theory or system which accepts only such concepts as can be described in terms of the operations necessary to determine or prove them.
1931Jrnl. Philos. XXVIII. 545 Operationalism must be understood to state that a concept has no meaning unless its definition formulates performable operations. 1941P. Frank Between Physics & Philos. 5 Professor Bridgman's views have..been labelled ‘operationalism’, although he himself is not pleased by this name. 1950Mind LIX. 571 Pragmatism and its modern offspring operationalism. 1965N. Chomsky Aspects of Theory of Syntax 194 Perhaps this loss of interest in theory..was fostered by certain ideas (i.e., strict operationalism or strict verificationism) that were considered briefly in positivist philosophy of science..in the early nineteen-thirties. 1965[see operationally adv.]. 1968M. Black Labyrinth of Lang. vi. 142 Operationalism may rank with Freudianism as one of the major intellectual forces in the Western world between the first two World Wars. 1972Language XLVIII. 418 It would appear that the appeal of various forms of operationalism, positivism, and behaviourism,..had a great deal to do with the emergence of a new professional identification on the part of a small group of young men.
Hence opeˈrationalist n. and a.
1931Jrnl. Philos. XXVIII. 545 When the operationalist defines a concept in terms of operations, the meaning of the concept thus defined is not restricted to performed operations or to operations which are actually going to be performed. 1934Mind XLIII. 201 This Mead wants to prove by following the operationalist argument about the concepts of physics. 1941A. Huxley Grey Eminence iii. 48 Buddha was not a consistent operationalist. 1965J. D. North Measure of Universe xv. 335 One of the biggest objections to the operationalist philosophy is that it appears to deny meaning even to such apparently harmless dispositional words as ‘imperceptible’, ‘movable’, and so on. Ibid. 336 But (runs the operationalist's argument) even where D1 and D2 turn out to be more or less the same and even where, as a matter of convenience, one assimilates the two concepts, in any careful or philosophical account they must always be distinguished. 1977Language LIII. 170 In the period when a strictly behaviorist and operationalist philosophy dominated American linguistics, constraining the linguist to discount any data beyond the ‘physical’ record, Hoijer delivered a paper at the 8th International Congress of Linguists on the importance of ‘Native reaction as a criterion in linguistic analysis’. |