Sterrett and Smith argue that deduction is ill-suited for use in argument-centered works and that deduction should not replace induction. We respond by (1) clarifying some key terms, (2) proclaiming the extreme importance of induction for marketing science, (3) showing that the demands of deductive reasoning, if properly understood, are not excessive, and (4) defanging their argument from non-ampliativity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CoombsClyde H., DawesRichard, and TverskyAmos (1970), Mathematical Psychology: An Elementary Introduction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
2.
SkipperRobert, and HymanMichael R. (1987), “Evaluating and Improving Argument-Centered Works in Marketing,”Journal of Marketing, 51 (October), 60–75.
3.
SterrettS. Martin, and SmithDaniel C. (1990), “A Comment on Evaluating and Improving Argument-Centered Works in Marketing’,”Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 83–8.
