Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1993-12
Psychology of the Scientist: LXVI. The Idiot Savants Have Taken over the Psychology Labs! or Why in Science Using the Rejection of the Null Hypothesis as the Basis for Affirming the Research Hypothesis is Unwarranted
The fable of a group of idiot savants, who conduct methodologically flawless research to test senseless research hypotheses and are able to affirm some of them on the basis of the rejection of the null hypothesis, is used to dramatize the argument that the rejection of the null hypothesis, by itself, is not sufficient grounds for affirming the research hypothesis. Reasons and examples are given to argue that affirmation of a scientific hypothesis must be based primarily on substantive evidence that is independent of an hypothesis test.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerksonJ. (1942) Tests of significance considered as evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 37, 325–335.
2.
ChowS. L. (1991) Some reservations about power analysis. American Psychologist, 46, 1088.
3.
CohenJ. (1990) Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
4.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
5.
FisherR. A. (1960) The design of experiments. (7th ed.) New York: Hafner.
6.
FiskeD. W.ShwederR. A. (Eds.) (1986) Metatheory in social science. Chicago, IL: Univer. of Chicago Press.
7.
GigerenzerG.MurrayD. J. (1987) Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
RosenthalR.RubinD. B. (1978) Authors' response. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 410–415.
9.
WatsonJ. D. (1968) The double helix. New York: Atheneum.
