🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, eriksson@gvaadg.enet.dec.com wrote:
> 
>In article <24JAN93.19042016@skyfox>, meagher@skyfox writes:
>|>	I don't want to argue for the long-term distinguishability of 
>|>cog. sci., cog. psyche, and cog. neuro, however I do think that presently
>|>there are some distinguishing features of these areas that arise for
>|>reasons having to do with "stabalizing" factors inherent in science.  
>|>refers to self-authenticating techniques that "harmonize" data, theory, and
>|>methods (for more, see recent writings by Hacking).  
> 
>Could you give references to the articles/books (Hacking's) you're referring
>to?

Here is a ref:

Hacking, I. (1992). 'Style' for historians and philosophers. Stud. Hist.
	Phil. Sci., 23(1), 1-20.

For more by Hacking see references therein.

Also, along the same (constructivist) lines I would recommend:

Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject: Historical origins of
	Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hope they are helpful.

Paul D. Meagher
Dept. of Psychology
University of Saskatchewan
meagher@sask.usask.ca