Hostname: page-component-6587cd75c8-gglxz Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-04-24T01:00:41.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

There are no shortcuts to theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Berna Devezer Open the ORCID record for Berna Devezer [Opens in a new window]
Berna Devezer*
Affiliation:
College of Business and Economics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA [email protected] https://webpages.uidaho.edu/bernadevezer/
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Almaatouq et al. claim that the integrative experiment design can help “develop a reliable, cohesive, and cumulative theoretical understanding.” I will contest this claim by challenging three underlying assumptions about the nature of scientific theories. I propose that the integrative experiment design should be viewed as an exploratory framework rather than a means to build or evaluate theories.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e38
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Borsboom, D. (2013, November 20). Theoretical amnesia [Blog]. Open Science Collaboration Blog. http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2013/11/20/theoretical-amnesia/Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1997). Exploratory experimentation and the role of histochemical techniques in the work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 19(1), 27–45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23332033Google ScholarPubMed
Chang, H. (2012). Incommensurability: Revisiting the chemical revolution. In Kindi, V. & Arabatzis, T. (Eds.), Kuhn's the structure of scientific revolutions revisited (p. 153). Routledge.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese, 153(3), 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9097-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (2010). “How does it work?” vs. “what are the laws?”: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. In The world in the head (pp. 282–310). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199548033.003.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gelman, A. (2022). Mismatch between scientific theories and statistical models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000091CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for theories. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398082006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2021). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970585CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMullin, E. (2008). The virtues of a good theory. In Psillos, S. & Curd, M. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 498–508). Routledge.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: A methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/288135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(4), 806–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports, 66(1), 195–244. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1990.66.1.195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navarro, D. J. (2021). If mathematical psychology did not exist we might need to invent it: A comment on theory building in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 707–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oberheim, E., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2018). The incommensurability of scientific theories. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incommensurability/Google Scholar
Oude Maatman, F. (2021). Psychology's theory crisis, and why formal modelling cannot solve it [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/puqvsGoogle Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1905). Science and hypothesis (Greenstreet, W. J., Trans.). Walter Scott.Google Scholar
Proulx, T., & Morey, R. D. (2021). Beyond statistical ritual: Theory in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 671–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211017098CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Fried, E. I., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620974697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrer, J. M. (2018). Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, K. (2021). Underdetermination of scientific theory. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/scientific-underdetermination/Google Scholar
Steinle, F. (1997). Entering new fields: Exploratory uses of experimentation. Philosophy of Science, 64(S4), S65–S74. https://doi.org/10.1086/392587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1967). What is a scientific theory? In Morgenbesser, S. (Ed.), Philosophy of science today (pp. 55–67). Basic Books.Google Scholar
van Rooij, I. (2019, January 18). Psychological science needs theory development before preregistration. Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/psychological-science-needs-theory-development-before-preregistration/Google Scholar
Van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winther, R. G. (2021). The structure of scientific theories. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/structure-scientific-theories/Google Scholar