I first argue that there are three major currents in the contemporary debate on operationalism. These are: (a) methodologists who criticize operationalism qua philosophy, (b) psychologists who practice operationalization that is allegedly philosophically noncommittal, and (c) critics who claim that psychologists’ validation practices commit them to stronger operationalism than psychologists realize. I then outline respectful operationalism and argue that it avoids the main criticisms of operationalism while incorporating some of the epistemic benefits of operational definitions. I show how respectful operationalism aligns with other operationalism-friendly theories, such as generalizability theory and Michael T. Kane’s argument-based approach to validity.

首先，我认为当代关于操作主义的辩论有三大潮流。它们是：谁骂操作主义（一）方法论QUA理念，（B）心理学家谁实践运作是涉嫌哲学不置可否，并声称谁是心理学家的验证实践这些承诺更强的操作主义心理学家相比实现（C）的批评。然后，我概述了恭敬的操作主义，并辩称它避免了对操作主义的主要批评，同时结合了操作定义的一些认知好处。我将展示尊重的操作主义与其他友好的操作主义理论如何契合，例如泛化理论和迈克尔·凯恩基于论证的有效性方法。