Talk:Operationalization

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Start‑class High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic / Science Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of science

Merger with Operational definition?

No. Bridgman's philosophy separate from an operational definition which has a broader use. --Thomasmeeks 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.Tstrobaugh 18:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Bridgmans idea is called operational definition (and he coined it) and operationalization is merely the process of turning concepts safely defined using operational definitions. Bridgmans philosophy is not more narrow than his ideas, obviously. iNic 12:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge I cannot say that I know very much about the subject, but I think that the concepts are extremely closely related. Andries 12:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge But I would rename the merged item as "Operationalism" (with redirects for the other terms), and explain that it is a broader topic than that laid out by Bridgman, which it is. I suspect Bridgman himself would approve. He didn't set forth the final exposition of the topic, and wouldn't claim to own the word. Indeed, the idea to which he applied a label long predates his discussion of it. With the concurrence of others, I am willing to combine the articles, and bring out the antecedents. --Jon Roland 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Operationalism is the best title for a merge. But in what sense is the idea broader today? The idea is the same even though the application is broader today. I didn't say he owned the words, I said that he coined the words as he explained this philosophy for the first time ever. And who predated Bridgman according to you? iNic 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is older than Bridgman. One can find it implicit in the writings of William James, and back to the utilitarians, and even to Francis Bacon, with a little stretch. The unconfirmed rumor is that the term was in use among Bridgman's circle of acquaintances before he published. However, we don't need to argue precedence here. It is an analytic approach to discussion of the subject that is broader than Bridgman. That should be sufficient to use the term in the broader sense than he used it. --Jon Roland 05:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the broader, looser and simpler idea that we should clearly define what we talk about in scientific matters is older than Bridgman, of course. It's connected to the Age of Enlightenment in physics (and later in other fields of science). But Bridgman's idea is much more subtle than that. The only forerunner to Bridgman is Einstein whose methodology Bridgman turned into a general philosophy. However, Einstien didn't realize he was using a new methodological philosophy; he thought he was simply implementing the philosophy of Ernst Mach. But Mach rejected Eintein's thinking. And even though Mach was not only a heavy influence to Einstein but also to the highly influential logical positivists, the positivists nevertheless rejected Bridgman's operationalism. This shows that Bridgman's philosophy was new and highly controversial at the time. iNic 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, when Bridgman's operationalism later became a buzzword even in other sciences, like psychology and the social sciences, the concept shifted meaning and became simply the label for the general cry for clearly defined concepts in those sciences, i.e., the same kind of battle that Francis Bacon and others fought during the enlightenment when it comes to physics and alchemy. This important distiction has to be stressed in the article(s) I think; that this concept originated with Bridgman but later his "operationalism" has become the label for quite a different struggle outside the natural sciences. iNic 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree with the merger on the basis that there can be two different definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.66.110 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't agree. Operationalization is a process, not necessarily ending with a closed definition, [User:SarahPhilipson] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahPhilipson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Chris?

Who's the Chris cited at the end of the third paragraph?

Probably the name of the vandal himself. iNic 12:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

It's painful for a physicist to realize that what she always thought was one concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts

Gratuitous use of the female pronoun is just as annoying as gratuitous use of the male.

How about "It's painful for a physicist to realize that what appears to be a single concept is, in fact, two or more distinct concepts"?

I'd change it myself except that all my edits seem to be undone these days. 84.9.82.184 10:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pronoun 'one' can be resurrected, with a little modification here: '... what one always thought was a single concept is, in fact, two or more ... .' Geologist (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1950's social sciences

Should be more about the 1950's social-science meaning of "operationalism", which claimed that unless you could lay out a series of steps by which something could be concretely measured, then it simply didn't exist scientifically. Operationalism was related to the concepts of behaviorism and logical positivism which prevailed at that time. Also, the view was sometimes held that it wasn't really adequate just to show that a theory was consistent with observations -- it was also desirable or necessary to show a series of steps by which the theory could be directly derived from the observations (this was part of the meaning of "biuniqueness" in linguistics). AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bogus physics example?

The article says, "Previously, no one had paid any attention to the different operations used because they always produced the same results," referring to Einstein and inertial versus gravitational mass. I don't think this is right. Loránd Eötvös surely understood the distinction before Einstein was born.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there should be any physics in the article. It's not a term that is used in science. Google gave me nothing apart from this 1927 book by Percy Bridgman.Bhny (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the general relativity example is contradicted by the last sentence where it says he used operationalization in Special relativity and not in General. I'll delete the paragraph unless anyone can fix it. Here's a pretty good reference about it- [[1]] At the heart of special relativity was Einstein's recognition that judging the simultaneity of two events separated in space required a different operation from that required for judging the simultaneity of two events happening at the same place. So Bridgman actually was talking about simultaneity *not* equivalence. Bhny (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed for "In modern methodology of science"

I can't find a reference that "operationalization" is used in 'modern' science. All references are to the humanities apart from an essay written in 1927. We need to define the topic in the first paragraph, not give some historical usage Bhny (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering [[2]] doesn't mention operationalization at all Bhny (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is used all the time in psychology and a number of other fields. I changed the lede to just say science. Perhaps that resolves these concerns. --Thosjleep (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could be specific- psychology and what other fields? My point is that it is not generally used in science. It is used in specific fields, so let's list them Bhny (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "In science, especially psychology and other social sciences,..."? --Thosjleep (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except we have no evidence yet that it is used in science except for social sciences. There seems to be a wp:pov push that hard science uses the term, but the above ref, a large text book, didn't even mention it Bhny (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of social science is that it is a subcategory of science, so if something is used in any social science it is by definition used in science.--Thosjleep (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to argue against that kind of logic. Do you really mean articles that begin "In social science,..." should be changed to "In science,..." And science is a kind of epistemology and that is a branch of philosophy so maybe all articles should start "In philosophy,..."

I don't think that's what I'm arguing at all. Social science is a more specific category than science. I don't think operationalization (or the use of operational definitions) is a concept restricted to social science since it is a core element of the scientific method (see: Scientific_method#Elements_of_the_scientific_method). Additionally, this article is mostly written about physics (I didn't write it, btw), so saying it's a concept restricted to the social sciences and humanities and then talking about physics is fairly confusing for the reader.--Thosjleep (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]