Conceptual rigor is indeed a desideratum worth dedicated pursuit; in fact, one might wish that Chow had pursued it somewhat more diligently in his present essay. I suggest that the approach to data interpretation he advocates here is an etch-a-sketch draft whose prospect for refinement into an operational logic of inference that professional scientists can live by appears minuscule.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Chow, S.L. (1991). Conceptual rigor versus practical impact. Theory & Psychology, 1(3), 337-360.
2.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1960). The fallacy of the hypothetico-deductive significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 416-428.
3.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1970). The art of metascience, Or, what should a scientific theory be? In J.R. Royce (Ed.), Toward unification in psychology (pp. 54-163). Toronto: Toronto University Press.
4.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1972). Scientific inference: The myth and the reality. In S.R. Brown & D.J. Brenner (Eds.), Science, psychology, and communication: Essays honoring William Stephenson (pp. 95-118). New York: Columbia University Press.
5.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1980). Nicod's criterion: Subtler than you think. Philosophy of Science, 47, 638-643.
6.
Rozeboom, W.W. (1990). Hypothetico-deductivism is a fraud. American Psychologist, 45, 555-556.
