Abstract
The question of unity and diversity in science and psychology is a question that seems to resist final solution. Part of the problem is that the analysis is usually not pushed to the level where the ambiguity of the meaning of unity shows up. Unity can mean “singleness” in the sense of absence of difference or “singleness” in the sense of integrating diverse parts under one idea (concinnity). When scientists object to unity in science or psychology they imply “absence of difference” and when scientists argue for it they imply unity in the sense of concinnity. Thus the two senses of unity can be rendered compatible and the position is taken that unity in the sense of concinnity is desired and necessary for psychology to be a mature science.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
DIXON, Roger A. (1983). Theoretical proliferation in psychology: A plea for sustained disunity. The Psychological Record, 33, 337–340.
KANTOR, J. R. (1983). System analysis in science and in psychology. The Psychological Record, 33, 301–311.
KANTOR, J. R. (1984). Scientific unity and spiritistic disunity. The Psychological Record, 34, 69–71.
KOCH, S. (1976). Language communities, search cells, and the psychological studies. In J. K. Cole & W. J. Arnold (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 23. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
LEARY, DAVID. (1983). On scientific morality. American Psychologist, 38, 12–53.
OBSERVER. (1971). Disunity in science: Inconcinnity in psychology. The Psychological Record, 21, 565–569
OBSERVER. (1982). Unity and disunity in science and in psychology. The Psychological Record, 32, 291–295.
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. (1976). Springfield, Ma: G. & C. Merriam Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giorgi, A. Theoretical Plurality and Unity in Psychology. Psychol Rec 35, 177–181 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394923
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394923