Come on, Jack, you can't kid me! You wrote that before you knew the=
question!
Seriously, the Fundamental Postulate may qualify in your terms. First, it's=
=20
complicated in the sense that, at the risk of annoying the keepers of the=20
flame (pun originally unintentional, but reconstrued as deliberate) it's one=
=20
of the most obscure utterances in psychology. It's also regarded as one of=
=20
the great truths and has, in some domains, acquired the status of a mantra=
=20
thereby.
Some of the obscurity is due in part to its being so elliptical, and the=20
consequence is a set of underpinning propositions which either form a=20
self-consistent system (regarded as one of PCP's great strengths, and=20
subject to continuing attempts to extend it) or they don't. If they don't,=
=20
then nothing more to say - mantra rules! If they do, then, taking a=20
G=F6delian stance, it may be that it is effectively impossible to make any=
=20
profound statement about human psychology that isn't simply an article of=20
faith. This is as true of positivism as of PCP, so that making any=20
comparison between them begins to look more and more questionable as a=20
search for illumination.
In this respect I'm intrigued that in another posting received this a.m.=20
Suzanne Huffman uses "coherence" as a criterion for judgment between=20
narratives. The construing of coherence may be vital in sorting out those=
=20
aspects of science, psychology in particular, that are already in the G=F6de=
l=20
Trap from those that sre still wandering around unaware of its existence so=
=20
to speak, and settling the question outlined above - if it can be settled,=
=20
of course.
Regards,
Bill.
Bill ramsay,
Dept. of Educational Studies,
University of Strathclyde,
Jordanhill Campus,
GLASGOW,
G13 1PP,
Scotland.
'phone: +44 (0)141 950 3364
'fax: +44 (0)141 950 3367=20
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%