[Xmca-l] Re: Leontyev's activities

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

So far as I know we are indebted to Percy Bridgman for the idea of the 
requirement of "opeational definition" of concepts.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/bridgman.htm
If you search for "operation" in Einstein's reply to criticisms (from 
Bridgman):
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1940s/reply.htm
I think this is a view which the Marxist Leontyev would agree with.
Molecules existed in chemical and physical theory long before one could 
speak of an "operational definition" of a molecule.

Andy

Huw Lloyd wrote:
> On 9 August 2013 00:26, Martin Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
>
>   
> > Huw,
> >
> > I dont know how literally you're using the term, but the notion of
> > "operational definition" is very much part of theory of science of logical
> > positivism. I don't think you're going to find much of that in Leontyev.
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >     
> I mean simply how the experimental paradigm(s) reflects the concept.
>
> Seems odd to eschew a phrase that yields additional ways of knowing, e.g.
>  a working definition, a test based definition, conceptual, etc.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
>