(1988). Under What Conditions Can Theoretical Psychology Survive And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
hychotogiel Rsiw cqright reE8 by the Amqim ***,ffi9_'d;:SA{ffdJi"j 1988. Vol. 95, No. 4, 559-565 Under What Conditions Can Theoretical Psychology Survive and Prosper? Integrating the Rational and Empirical Epistemologies DonaldG. MacKay University of California, Los Angeles This article reexamines some important issues raised by Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, and Baum- gardner (1986) conceming the nature oftheory and its role in research progress, practical applica- tions of psychological knowledge, strategies for develqing and evaluating theories, and relations between empirical and theoretical psychology. I argue that Greenwald et al.'s result+entered meth- ods will not solve problems such as confirmation bias and irreplicability and will aggravate other existing problems: lack of viable theory, fragmentation of the field, mechanical fact gathering, lim- ited applicability of psychological knowledge, and noncumulative develryment of facts, with need- less duplication ofresults and reinvention ofempirical constructs. I conclude that all ofthese prob- lems are best solved by establishing a balance between the "rational" and "empirical" epistemologies in psychology. We are currently witnessing an upsurge ofinterest in theoreti- approach ofthe rational epistemology is to develop theories that cal psychology (see e.g., Hyland, l98l), and detailed and funda- explain available facts, facilitate practical applications, and pre- mental theories are under construction, especially in cognitive dict new facts for future test. This "surface definition" ofap- psychology, currently one ofthe most advanced areas ofpsycho- proaches is deceptive, howeve4 because ofhidden differences in logical theorizing (Mandle6 1985; Royce, 1978). Royce (1984) how the two epistemologies interpret seemingly straightforward has complained, however, that in general, "psychological theo- conc€pts such as "practical application," "fact," and "theory." ries do not mesh well with the relevant data. Psychology's history in this regard reveals a pattern of extreme pendulum Facts Under the Two Epistemologies swings between observation and theory-that is, between the epistemology, facts are interesting in and empirical and rational epistemologies, with only the occasional Under the empirical whereas the epistemology, theo- investigator attempting to bring the two together." (pp. ix-xi). of themselves, under rational fact is: Findings are especially The rational and empirical epistemologies are complemen- ries determine how interesting a a well-established theory, or tary frameworks for the pursuit of scientific understanding with interesting when they fail to fit proposed most spectacularly, important implications for the future course of psychology. The when they fit a newly theory and often do not count as scientific facts present article shows how these frameworks apply to issues both. Indeed, observations plausible for explaining them is raised by Greenwald, Pratkanis, Leippe, and Baumgardner until a theoretical mechanism proposed. large refused to consider the (1986), henceforth GPL&B. My goal is not to criticize GPL&B For example, science at large body ofwell-known observations on selective breeding as but to point out some limitations ofthe largely empirical episte- proposed a plausible theory for ex- mology within which psychology and GP[&B have implicitly scientific fact until Darwin plaining these observations. Similarly, extrasensory perception been operating. currently falls outside the realm ofpsychological fact not neces- General Approaches of the Two Epistemologies sarily because researchers on psychic phenomena are "ego-in- The approach of the empirical epistemology is to develop a volved theory advocates" (as GPL&B suggest, p.222), but be- proposed body ofreliable facts and real world applications, whereas the cause no plausible theoretical mechanism has been for explaining the data that have been reported. The author thanks Robert Barnai, Dale Berger, Melissa Bowerman, Theory Under the Empirical Epistemology Colin Brown, Tyler Burge, Deborah Burke, Aaron Cohen, Andrew Comrey, Uli Frauenfelder, Mort Friedman, Alan Garnham, Joseph The empirical epistemology defines theories broadly and al- Gingerelli, Barbara Gutek, Peter Hagoort, Bruce Hayes, Herbert Heueq ways in relation to operations: In GPL&B (p. 217), theories Keith Holyoak, Peter Jordens, Ingrid Kummer, Pim Levelt, Leah Light, (conceptual statements) contrast with operations (specific pro- Douglas Mewhort, Antje Meyeq William Rosar, Chris Sinha, Bobbie cedures for fabricating or measuring events) but are related to Spellman, Fritz Tsao, Tom Wickens, and two anonymous rwiewers for qerations via an "abstractness" gradient; theories vary from helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, which was written very abstract or removed from specific operations (e.g., "Re- while Donald G. MacKay was a research fellow at the Max Planck Insti- ward contingent on a respons€ increases the probability of a tute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. p. 2 I 7) to less theoretical (e.g., "Presentation offood Correspondence concerningthis article should be addressed to Don- response," ald G. MacKay, Department of Psychology, Univenity of California, to a pigeon after its depression of a key increases the rate of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90024. depression of the key," p. 217).The factthat the "highly theoret- 559 560 THEORETICAL NOTES ical" version of this key example is vague or inaccurate when ment" (begining "Belief change toward agreement with a belief- compared with the "less theoretical" version is curious (surely discrepant statement . ") is at best a not very highly evolved "probability per unit time" was meant, p.217), but may stem empirical generalization under the rational epistemology, a reg- from the empirical epistemology underlying GPL&B's ideas. ularity in the relation between empiricatly defined variables GPL&B's view of theory is @en to two criticisms. First, con- emerging from a large number of experiments. A more highly cepts and operations are virtually impossible to separate: Even evolved example is the law ofspeed-accuracy trade-off. Ratio- simple operations such as counting require conceptual classifr- nalist theories reduce a large number of such empirical general- cation. As Gaukroger (1978, p. 45) pointed out, "IfI am count- izations and their exceptions (see Hempel, 1966) to a small ing the number of things in a room, I must restrict myself to a number of conceptually simple theoretical constructs such as single system ofclassification. I cannot include a chair, wood, nodes (MacKay, 1982, 1987) and hidden units (McClelland, legs, molecules, and oblong shapes in the same total." Even Rummelhart, & the PDP Research Group, 1986). These con- GPL&B's first and repeatedly discussed example of confirma- structs begin with purely presumptive status and the interac- tion bias (the experimental findings of Bruner &Potter, 1964, tions between them (e.g., altered linkage strength) purport to where subjects guess at the nature of objects represented in describe how things (e.g., minds) universally and inevitably badly focused pictures) illustrates this inseparability of con- work for all time, space, and hypothetical or Gedanken exam- cepts and @erations. Here the "theory" in GPL&B's "theory- ples(Kuhn, 1977). predicted bias" (p. 2 I 6) refers to misleading verbal instructions Rules of correspondence map theoretical constructs onto provided by an experimenter as to what the blurred picture rep- empirical generalizations, but these rules are modifiable and resents. Because experimental instructions surely fall at the @- open to extension, enabling theoretical constructs to outlast ex- erational end of GPL&B's hypothesized continuum, the cutoff isting means ofobservation, and to suggest future observations, point for use ofthe term theory is atbest unclear. lines ofresearch, and practical applications that are currently An even stronger criticism is that GPI^&B used the term the- unimaginable. For example, by altering rules of correspon- ory so imprecisely as to present a real danger of throwing out dence and adding new ones, the theoretical term sound waye the baby with the bathwater. Ambiguities in use of the word has survived for 1,800 years, explaining thousands oforiginally theory are not new (see Underwood, 1957, pp. 175-180), but unimagined observations ofan ever more direct and precise na- as GPL&B (p. 217) pointed out, we should choose our terms so ture (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, & Thagard, 1986). The "loose as to minimize confusion wherever possible. The remainder of and variable" nature ofcorrespondence rules (GPL&B ,p.227) the present article therefore adopts the more specific terms em- means that full operational definitions for a theoretical con- pirical generalization, hypothesis, unique observation, guiding struct are impossible: Unlike empirical terms of the sort illus- idea, opinion, theory and theoretical terms, followed in paren- trated in GPL&B, theoretical terms cannot be completely and theses with the relevant page number for GPL&B's use of the explicitly defined (see Hempel, 1970, pp. 205-206). This viola- lerm theory. For example, when GPL&B claim on page 2 26 that tion of operationalism is undesirable under the empirical epis- theory testing should "often be displaced from its status as a temology but essential to scientifrc progress under the rational central goal of research," they clearly mean the testing ofempir- epistemology. As Hempel