Optimissed wrote:
Perhaps the "monism" refers to an assumed unity of all "science" and perhaps not. "Anomalous" would refer to the fact that soft science is not capable of being rigorously tested, so it is anomalous with that principle. Or perhaps it doesn't mean that at all, but something else, equally reasonable.
Even so, only an idiot would call it that. Or a pompous, profiteering academic, of course!
Work on your alliteration. Pompous, profiteering pseudointellectual acnedemic. Come up with some neologisms at least, they make this whole psychological stance so much more credible. Keyword: acnedemic
If I may be so bold:
<<Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism).>>
This is a load of complete tosh. I don't blame Stanford. I blame the pseudo-philosophers who take a perfectly natural and accurate principle, that "psychology is a soft science", and then try to make it their own by affixing to it an absolutely idiotic name. No-one should even read academics who use names like that because it should be obvious that they have nothing to offer and they're trying to profit from obscurantism.
As was implied in me wording, highly accurate source.