This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Philosophy:Logic /Science /Mind /LanguageMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Philosophy of science Philosophy of mind Philosophy of language Psychology This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPsychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale. Linguistics:Philosophy of language This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflinguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byPhilosophy of language task force.

Jules LT, YES. I understand the words I'm reading but I have absolutely no idea of the meaning. Help us, psychologistics. I used this word the other day in a conversation and Googled it on a whim to see if it was real. My meaning at that time, however, was psycho-logigical, in the psychotic-sense. Nothing to do with psychologistics, which I know absolutely nothing about, even after reading Wikipedia. -Andre

There seems to to be far too much technical jargon here. The article seems to assume that the reader is already familiar with the subject.—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.205.34.127 (talk)16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article could really use some examples...Jules LT19:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What were the later texts in which Husserl sought to distance himself from psychologism? I thought this project was carried out mainly in the Prolegomenon to the Logical investigations, a relatively early text in Husserl's corpus.

It certainly could do with some examples. And Popper wasn't entirely opposed to psychologism (whatever it means) according to the OED: "1945 K. R. POPPER Open Society II. xiv. 87 The structure..of the social environment, as opposed to the natural environment, is man-made; and therefore it must be explicable in terms of human nature, in accordance with the doctrine of psychologism." - Pepper150.203.227.13006:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm in favor of dropping that entire last paragraph. It's undocumented and it refers to a wholly different question (verificationism and empiricism) for which afaik not a single philosopher has used the term 'psychologism'.Stdbrouw15:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The criticism of this [epistemological] kind of psychologism can be traced back to Kant". - This point needs elaboration, otherwise it seems debatable.Dutch schulz (talk)14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that others have got here before me...yes, this article is pointless. I still have absolutely no idea what psychologism is. Definitely a clean-up required.121.73.7.84 (talk)13:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologism simply means this: the way that objects are experienced as being outside of a knower’s brain depends on what is occurring inside of a knower’s brain. Such known objects include the written or spoken symbols of logic and mathematics.Lestrade (talk)20:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

This article is indeed useless. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) article on Psychologism provides a good foundation for understanding the subject.— Precedingunsigned comment added by128.148.231.11 (talk)20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Husserl external link no longer works.Myrvin (talk)09:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: [Bang Theory; Sheldon Cooper and Amy Farrah Fowler arguing] 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added byLenehey (talk •contribs)

• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class logic articles
• Mid-importance logic articles
• Logic task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of science articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
• Philosophy of science task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of mind articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles
• Philosophy of mind task force articles
• Start-Class philosophy of language articles
• Mid-importance philosophy of language articles
• Philosophy of language task force articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles