Premium
Does James's criticism of Helmholtz really involve a contradiction?
Author(s) -
High Richard P.
Publication year - 1978
Publication title -
journal of the history of the behavioral sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.216
H-Index - 26
eISSN - 1520-6696
pISSN - 0022-5061
DOI - 10.1002/1520-6696(197810)14:4<337::aid-jhbs2300140405>3.0.co;2-c
Subject(s) - contradiction , criticism , epistemology , philosophy , interpretation (philosophy) , statement (logic) , perception , helmholtz free energy , section (typography) , limit (mathematics) , sociology , law , computer science , mathematics , political science , physics , mathematical analysis , linguistics , quantum mechanics , operating system
This essay challenges Nicholas Pastore's interpretation that there is a contradiction in the “Practical Interests Limit Discrimination” section of William James's Principles of Psychology . It is argued that James quoted Helmholtz in this section simply to provide support for the empirical fact that selective attention is an important factor in perception. Thus, the Helmholtz extracts were never intended to be a theoretical statement on James's part and do not involve a contradiction of James's formulation of perception.