Wikipedia

Khác biệt giữa bản sửa đổi của “Hành vi học”

Duyệt lịch sử tương tác
← Thay đổi trướcThay đổi sau →
Nội dung được xóa Nội dung được thêm vào
Trực quanMã wiki
Cheers!-bot (thảo luận | đóng góp)
5.681.853 sửa đổi
n replaced: {{cite journal → {{chú thích tạp chí, {{cite book → {{chú thích sách, {{cite web → {{chú thích web, {{Reflist}} → {{Tham khảo}}
lâu wa hok dịch
Dòng 10:
 
{{quote|Tính đến bản chất kép của họ về tính chuyên môn và tính tổng quát, các chức năng này phải là đối tượng của một khoa học riêng biệt. Một số bộ phận của nó đã được nghiên cứu trong một thời gian dài, bởi vì loại nghiên cứu này, trong đó con người có thể là đối tượng chính, đã luôn luôn trình bày những quan tâm lớn nhất. Sinh lý học, vệ sinh học, y học, tâm lý học, lịch sử động vật, lịch sử nhân loại, kinh tế chính trị, đạo đức, vv đại diện cho những mảnh vỡ của một khoa học mà chúng ta muốn thiết lập, nhưng vì những mảnh vỡ phân tán và thiếu sự phối hợp còn lại đến bây giờ chỉ là các bộ phận của các khoa học cụ thể. Chúng phải được liên kết với nhau và làm thành toàn bộ để làm nổi bật trật tự của toàn bộ và tính thống nhất của nó. Bây giờ bạn có một khoa học, cho đến nay chưa được đặt tên, mà chúng tôi đề nghị gọi Hành vi học - Praxeology (từ πραξις, hành động), hoặc bằng cách đề cập đến ảnh hưởng của môi trường, [[Mesology]] (từ μεơος, môi trường).
<ref>"À raison de leur double caractère de spécialité et de généralité, les fonctions doivent constituer l’objet d’une science distincte. Quelques—unes de ses parties ont été étudiées de bonne heure, car ce genre de recherches, dont l’homme pouvait se faire le sujet principal, a présenté de tout temps le plus vif intérêt. La physiologie, l’hygiène, la médecine, la psychologie, l’histoire des animaux, l’histoire humaine, l’économie politique, la morale, etc., représentent des fragments de la science que nous voudrions établir; mais fragments, épars et sans coordination, sont restés a l’état de sciences particulières. Il faudrait les rapprocher et en faire un tout afin de mettre en lumière l’ordre de l’ensemble et son unité. On aurait alors une… science, innommée jusqu’ici et que nous proposons d’appeler Praxéologie (de πραξις, action), ou, en se référant a l’influence des milieu, Mésologie (de μεơος, milieu)."</ref>}}
 
However, the term was used at least once previously (with a slight spelling difference), as far back as 1608, by [[Clemens Timpler]] in his ''Philosophiae practicae systema methodicum''.<ref>Timpler, Clemens. ''Philosophiae practicae systema methodicum, in tres partes digestum, in quo universa probe honesteque vivendi ratio tam generatim, quam speciatim per praecepta et quaestiones breviter ac perspicue explicatur et probatur, pars prima, complectens ethicam generalem, libris IV pertractatam''. Hanoviae, Apud Gulielmum Antonio, 1608. p. 388</ref> In this work, Timpler, when examining [[ethics]], goes on to say:
 
{{quote|The general ethics falls into two parts: 1) ''[[Aretology|Aretologie]]'' and 2) ''Praxiologie'', i.e., of virtue and of their action.... This distinction between the moral actions of the virtues seems a novelty; but it's necessary, however, because the habit of virtue and the move to action do not coincide.}}
 
It was later mentioned by [[Robert Flint]] in 1904.<ref>[[Robert Flint|Flint, Robert]], ''Philosophy as Scientia Scientiarum,'' Edinburgh, 1904, esp. pp. 254–55.</ref> The popular definition of this word was first given by [[Alfred Espinas|Alfred V. Espinas]] (1844–1922),<ref>Ostrowski, Jean J., 'Notes biographiques et bibliographiques sur Alfred Espinas', ''Review Philosophique de la France et de l'Etranger'', Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, No. 3, Juillet-Septembre, 1967, pp. 385–391</ref> the French philosopher and sociologist and the forerunner of the modern Polish school of the science of efficient action. The Austro-American school of economics was also based on a philosophical science of the same kind.
 
Again in the different spelling, the word was used by the English psychologist [[Charles Arthur Mercier]] (in 1911), and then proposed by Knight Dunlap to [[John B. Watson]] as a better name for his [[behaviorism]].<ref>Watson, John B., ''Behaviourism: the early years'', Volume 4</ref> It was rejected by Watson, but was accepted by the Chinese physiologist of behavior, [[Zing-Yang Kuo]] (b. 1898) in 1935,<ref>Edited by Murchison, Carl Allanmore, ''The Journal of psychology'', Volumes 3–4, 1935</ref> and mentioned by [[William McDougall (psychologist)|William McDougall]] (in 1928, and later).<ref>[[William McDougall|McDougall, William]], ''The battle of behaviorism: an exposition and an exposure'', 1928, pg 35</ref>
 
Previously the word ''praxiology'', with the meaning Espinas gave to it, was used by [[Tadeusz Kotarbiński]] (in 1923) and some time later by several economists, such as the Ukrainian, Eugene Slutsky (1926) in his attempt to base economics on a theory of action, the [[Austrian economics|Austrian]] Ludwig von Mises (1933), the Russian, [[Nikolai Bukharin]] (1888–1938) during the [[Second International]] Congress of History of Science and Technology in London (in 1931), and the Pole, [[Oscar Lange]] (1904–1965) in 1959, and later.
 
The Italian philosopher, Carmelo Ottaviano, was using the Italianised version, ''prassiologia'', in his treatises starting from 1935, but in his own way, as a theory of politics. After the [[Second World War]] the use of the term ''praxeology'' spread widely. After the emigration of von Mises to America his pupil [[Murray Rothbard]] defended the praxeological approach. A revival of Espinas's approach in France was revealed in the works of [[Pierre Massé]] (1946), the eminent cybernetician, Georges Théodule Guilbaud (1953), the Belgian logician, [[Leo Apostel]] (1957), the cybernetician, [[Anatol Rapoport]] (1962), Henry Pierron, psychologist and lexicographer (1957), [[François Perroux]], economist (1957), the social psychologist, Robert Daval (1963), the well-known sociologist, [[Raymond Aron]] (1963) and the methodologists, Abraham Antoine Moles and Roland Caude (1965).
 
Under the influence of Tadeusz Kotarbiński, praxeology flourished in Poland. A special 'Centre of Praxeology' (''Zaklad Prakseologiczny'') was created under the organizational guidance of the Polish Academy of Sciences, with its own periodical (from 1962), called at first ''Materiały Prakseologiczne'' (''Praxeological Papers''), and then abbreviated to ''Prakseologia''. It published hundreds of papers by different authors, and the materials for a special vocabulary edited by Professor Tadeusz Pszczolowski, the leading praxeologist of the younger generation. A sweeping survey of the praxeological approach is to be found in the paper by the French [[statistician]], Micheline Petruszewycz, ''A propos de la praxéologie''.<ref>In 'Mathématiques et Sciences Humaines', Paris, Centre de mathématique sociale et de statistique-Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, No. 11. Ete, 1965, pp. 11–18, and a rejoinder 'Réponse a un appel' by J. Ostrowski, ''ibid'',, No. 19, Ete, 1967, pp. 21–26</ref>
 
Ludwig von Mises was influenced by several theories in forming his work on praxeology, including [[Immanuel Kant|Immanuel Kant's]] works, [[Max Weber]]'s work on [[methodological individualism]], and [[Carl Menger]]'s development of the [[subjective theory of value]].<ref>George Selgin. ''Praxeology and Understanding: An Analysis of the Controversy in Austrian Economics'' [http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R2_2.PDF (pdf)]. Review of Austrian Economics 2 (1987): 22.</ref>
 
{{Austrian School sidebar |expanded=Theory}}
 
===Các phân ngành===
The categories of praxeology, the general, formal theory of human action, as outlined by [[Murray Rothbard]] are as follows:<ref>Murray N. Rothbard. [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/schuller.pdf "Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller"], ''[[American Economic Review]]'', December 1951, pp. 943–46.</ref>
: A. The Theory of the Isolated Individual ([[Robinson Crusoe Economy|Crusoe Economics]])
: B. The Theory of Voluntary Interpersonal Exchange ([[Catallactics]], or the Economics of the Market)
:: 1. [[Barter]]
:: 2. With [[Money|Medium of Exchange]]
::: a. On the [[Free Market|Unhampered Market]]
::: b. Effects of [[government|Violent Intervention]] with the Market
::: c. Effects of Violent Abolition of the Market (Socialism)
: C. The Theory of Propositional Exchange, or [[Law]] and [[Argumentation Ethics]],
: D. The Theory of [[War]] – Hostile Action
: E. The Theory of Games (e.g., [[John von Neumann|von Neumann]] and [[Oskar Morgenstern|Morgenstern]])
: F. Unknown
 
===Các phê phán===
[[Thomas Mayer]] has argued that the Austrian economists rejection of the [[Scientific method#Characterizations|scientific method]], which employs [[positivism]] and [[empiricism]] in the development of (falsifiable) [[Scientific theory#Pedagogical definition|theories]], invalidates Austrian methodology.<ref name="Mayer1998">{{chú thích tạp chí
|first=Thomas |last=Mayer |title=Boettke's Austrian critique of mainstream economics: An empiricist's response |publisher=Routledge
|journal=Critical Review |month=Winter |year=1998 |pages=151–171 |ref=harv
|doi=10.1080/08913819808443491
|volume=12 |quote=}}{{Subscription}}</ref><ref name="Newton1999">"Rules for the study of [[natural philosophy]]", {{harvnb |Newton |1999 |pp=794–6 }}, from Book '''3''', ''The System of the World''.</ref> Austrians argue that logical positivism cannot predict or explain human action and that empirical data itself is insufficient to describe economics which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify economic theory and that logical positivism is not the proper method of conducting economic science.<ref>Ludwig von Mises, ''Epistemological Problems of Economics'', http://mises.org/epofe/c1p1sec5.asp</ref><ref>http://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf</ref>
 
Economist [[Mark Blaug]] has criticized over-reliance on methodological individualism, arguing it would rule out all macroeconomic propositions that cannot be reduced to microeconomic ones, and hence reject almost the whole of received macroeconomics.<ref name=Blaug>{{chú thích sách|last=Blaug|first=Mark|title=The Methodology of Economics: Or, How Economists Explain|year=1992|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-43678-8|pages=45–46}}</ref>
 
== Xem thêm ==
* [[Kinh tế học hành vi]]
Lấy từ “https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hành_vi_học”