| Abstract: | Reports two errors in the original article by Russell D. Kosits (History of Psychology, 2004, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 340-366). On p. 358, the first paragraph should read "Given this theological background, it is now possible to consider the New Psychology's Fallacy argument as deeply ironic and even tragic, particularly for William James, the argument's most influential articulator." Also, on p. 342, footnote 5, 6th line of the quotation, the word to should not be crossed out. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 2004-21409-002.) In The Principles of Psychology, William James (1890) articulated an influential, boundary-setting argument against faculty psychology, subsequently dubbed the Fallacy of the Faculty Psychology. This argument was reiterated in American psychology textbooks for the next several decades, arguably solidifying and simplifying American perceptions of the "old" faculty psychology and establishing belief in the superiority of the "New Psychology." When placed in the context of American theological and philosophical history, however, the New Psychology argument appears unoriginal, somewhat unfair, and deeply (and even tragically) ironic. Despite their best intentions, a fallacy did emerge in the old psychology as they sought psychological foundations for libertarian free will. For those members of the New Psychology still committed to free will, then, the Fallacy argument cut both ways--refuting the fallacy also meant tearing down a long-standing foundation for free will in American psychology. Offering no viable alternative to fill the moral void, the New Psychology appeared at times conflicted with its new deterministic identity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
