ÿWPC÷| GétÐ#‰«[jßÂ$%„r|ö#nÁ2Õ&û¯Ú,}2fÞéµùóO!e™Ÿ~†¯o›zï?LÍsgT7±<æ_|2g|±Øj 3Žó •†ÇDPJçôÀ=|Ù2«ç¼Tɧã‘v»Z}RXÂz+ŽÌ©¦s €J4äa½vݺ@ÿŽ­dqKä:'é¤é ÁÛÏ=CÅÍüJ7lr‘—¢æ/‘áûQ1$è+xª}Žÿ‡ožPÏOÕÞßÕâË+ &‹4y;íð‡fÓ³åÎãfçA|Œ.™ †‰÷ðë—t?‚±XüÝh!¨‰¿Ã89d„V4­tK:0íBŒõÌûýTC;Ö®Å^£ú =w&di˜W4 „ä„K’vt…Ïìï¡5w¦~Ôê­ÿ*s^æ×ÌHšWÉnóÝnœ~Ši9>#¤H~'ˆœWúP`¬“Ò¦T°ùÏoèƒ Õ.ºÃb ¨­ßñÉ^;ž-8Cô2ÁMÁ1r¡÷œ i¼ú…³úÂO\°5®èóœb[÷KMæí D5ÏÀÅ JÛðõÌw_Ÿ0ßF[{ðÔRꢱz_ÿ•v<ÁHEzÐJF/áI\ß! ÎJ@ÀèÁ._Ô²3nÅ·Ú oi^ ¾ 0UÊ 0Ý 0¿ü 0¹» 0³t 0­' 0§Ô 0¡{ 0› 0¿· 0Ëv 0­A 0§î 0¡• 0›6 0•Ñ 0f 0‡õ 0¼| 0È8 0ª 0¤ª 0žN 0˜ì 0’„ 0Œ 0„¢U6>&U6dU0š 1uÊ? 0PO#ÉŸU-Nh %¶M¼(ÀNè 1uê 72_w‘4•© m«ÂmØ©E bî" Bö" 0”# 0D§#i ë#ŠT-vÞ/ÛT4„/7Q³8>;õB=·7?±îAoŸJôLvN xOù…iÏ~kqMnq¾s¿/ybîzbözþz{){?{U{U{j{!€{-¡{¡{!Î{ï{|,||||"G|i|i|||||•|•|•|«|Á|!Ö|Ç+a3" *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*D+D ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*5+5 ÿÿ(_24Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó*2+2 ÿÿ(_23Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó*/+/ ÿÿ(_22Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó*,+, ÿÿ(_21Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó*)+) ÿÿ(_20Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó*&+& ÿÿ(_19Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó*#+# ÿÿ(_18Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ ôôL¤ÓÓ  Ó*>> ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ  Ó*DD ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*55 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó*22 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó*// ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó*,, ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó*)) ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó*&& ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó(## ÿÿ&_9Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó ôôL¤ÓÓ  Ó(>> ÿÿ&_8Ó  ÓÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ2(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤2ÓÓ  Ó(DD ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ,"Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤,ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó(55 ÿÿ&_6Ó  ÓÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ)ä ä <”ìDœôL¤)ÓÓ  Ó(22 ÿÿ&_5Ó ` ÓÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ&<<”ìDœôL¤&ÓÓ ` Ó(// ÿÿ&_4Ó ¸ ÓÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ#””ìDœôL¤#ÓÓ ¸ Ó(,, ÿÿ&_3Ó  ÓÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ ììDœôL¤ ÓÓ  Ó()) ÿÿ&_2Ó h ÓÓDDœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓDDœôL¤ÓÓ h Ó(&& ÿÿ&_1Ó À ÓÓœœôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓœœôL¤ÓÓ À Ó&## ÿÿ$_Ó  ÓÓ ôôL¤ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ ôôL¤ÓÓ  Óô\  `‹&Times New Roman<þ6X9`(‹Courier New—V{rA`‹WP MathA,ÿÿ35=EMU]em1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)3|K(('S$¡¡Ô..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô˜hp LaserJet 1012 DriverÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular$X3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a))i)a\_3pæ Ðwhich€we€can€easily€contrive€by€botching€the€setup,€this€entails€(òòOóóòò1óó€Ô€$&×%Â$Â÷nÔðDðÔ€$Â÷nÂ%$&×Ô€òòOóóòò2óó€€regardless€of€whether€òòOóóòò2óó€is€true€and€is€hence€aÐ ê’ Ðform-[f]€test€result€that€corroborates€òòTóó.€This€intolerable€implication€spectacularly€illustrates€why€the€material€implication€Ð ½e Ðððòòpóó€Ô€$&×%Â$Â÷nÔðDðÔ€$Â÷nÂ%$&×Ô€òòqóóðð€(by€logiciansðð€definition€equivalent€to€ððEither€not-òòpóó€or€òòqóóðð)€is€an€importantly€inadequate€substitute€for€ourÐ i Ðordinary-language€subjunctive€ððIf€òòp€óóthen€would€òòqóóðð.€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€was€surely€aware€of€analytic€philosophyððs€extensive€literature€on€Ð <ä Ðthis€non-equivalence,€and€he€could€have€avoided€the€problem€it€creates€here€simply€by€shifting€òòOóóòò1óó€in€[f]€into€the€string€ofÐ è Ðconjuncts€on€its€left;€yet€his€emphasis€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€(€1997€p.399),€on€the€materiality€of€this€conditional€strongly€suggests€that€heÐ ”< Ðwanted€it€this€way.€€His€stated€reason€is€far€from€adequate€(though€we€will€later€note€a€benefit);€and€this€point€much€meritsÐ @è Ðserious€discussion€because€the€material€conditional€in€[f]€omits€an€essential€facet€of€experimental€research,€namely,€that€someÐ ì”  Ðvariant€ofòò€Oóóòò1óó€is€almost€always€a€major€part-cause€of€òòOóóòò2óó€€if€that€occurs€on€the€test€occasion€at€issue;€and€our€deepest€challengeÐ ˜ @  Ðhere€is€to€make€that€connection€more€conceptually€explicit€than€accomplished€merely€by€reverting€the€horseshoe€in€[f]€to€aÐ D ì  Ðsubjunctive€conditional.€Ð ð ˜  Ð €Ý ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€For€the€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô-Golden€tests€of€Ô_ÔschizogeneÔ_Ô€theory,€each€indicator€is€taken€to€have€binary€(yes/no)€output.€But€most€Ð X Ðof€these€are€cuts€on€more€finely€graded€rating€scales,€so€an€even€more€basic€applications€issue€is€where€to€put€the€cuts.€That€isÐ >æ Ðthe€problem€which€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€designed€Ô_ÔMAXCOVÔ_Ô€to€solve.€Ð ê’ Ð lÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€I€would€like€to€think€that€most€traditional€null-hypothesis€testing€hasÔœœÔ€resulted€ÔÝÝÔfromÔÔ€real€orÔÞÞÔ€expected€social€coercionsÐ X ÐÓ  Ó€(demanding€advisors,€opinionated€editors),€like€driving€on€the€right€to€avoid€the€grief€we€would€otherwise€get€from€others.€But€inÐ ¬ Ð(1990a),€p.237,€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€had€a€more€contemptuous€suggestion:€ð ðSince€the€null-hypothesis€refutation€racket€is€ð ðsteady€workðð,€and€hasÐ °X Ðthe€merits€of€an€automated€research-grinding€device,€scholars€who€are€pardonably€devoted€to€making€more€money€and€keeping€theirÐ \ Ðjobs€.....€are€unlikely€to€contemplate€with€Ô_ÔequinamityÔ_Ô€a€criticism€that€says€that€their€whole€procedure€is€feckless€and€that€they€shouldÐ ° Ðquit€doing€it€and€do€something€else.ðð€Ð ´\ Ð ÑÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡X®XX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®XXX®{#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®ÔMid-century€analytic€philosophy€did€indeed€grapple€mightily€with€the€character€of€confirmation,€but€these€strugglesÐ X Ðwere€mainly€attempts€to€get€leverage€on€its€conceptual€nature,€notably€by€Carnap€(1962)€and€Hempel€(1945)€(€who€both€had€tiesÐ >æ Ðto€Feiglððs€Center),€and€produced€nothing€of€value€ð!ð€or€so€I€submit€though€Meehl€might€have€disagreed€ð!ð€for€assisting€researchÐ ê’ Ðscientists€to€theorize€more€€effectively.€Ð –> Ð zÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôöíòX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®Xò$ôöí{#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®ÔNamed€after€Frank€P.€Ramsey€(1903-1930),€the€wunderkind€Cambridge€philosopher€who€first€proposed€thisÐ X Ðconstruction.€Ð ¿ Ð GÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€$Â÷nÂX$XÔNamely,€that€any€declarative€sentence€'òòdóó'€is€true€Ô_ÔiffÔ_Ô€òòdóó.€The€sentence€just€proffered€does€not€literally€assert€theÐ Â Ðprinciple,€but€shows€schematically€what€philosophy€of€language€can€state€explicitly€only€with€the€technical€contrivance€Ð ¨æ Ðof€Ô_ÔdisquotationÔ_Ô€marks€(notably,€Quineð ðcornersðð).€Ð T’ Ð 4Ý ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôöíòX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®Xò$ôöí{#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®ÔAmbiguity€is€not€an€exception:€A€word€or€phrase€that€is€ambiguous€evokes€different€meanings€depending€onÐ X Ðcircumstances€and€sometimes€evokes€these€simultaneously.€But€those€meanings€themselves,€if€referential,€are€presumedÐ ¿ Ðby€orthodox€philosophy€of€science€to€have€unique€referents.€Ð Ãk Ð ëÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€This€is€not€to€insist€that€data€beliefs€need€justifying€in€precisely€the€same€way€that€hypotheses€of€the€sort€PopperÐ Â Ðwants€justified€need€this.€Rather,€it€submits€that€we€are€not€entitled€to€posit€a€sharp€divide€between€these€absent€a€plausibleÐ n¬ Ðepistemic€argument€for€that.€Ð X Ð ­Ý ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€My€own€efforts€to€incite€some€action€on€this€front€many€years€ago€were€thoroughly€unsuccessful.€Rozeboom€1970bÐ X Ðmay€well€be€too€ponderous€to€encourage€casual€perusal€(though€surely€no€worse€than€par€for€this€course);€but€Rozeboom€1960a,Ð ¬ Ðpart€I,€is€a€brief€and€easy€read€in€ordinary€language€that€makes€the€semantic€contretemps€undeniably€plain.€If€you€are€at€allÐ °X Ðinterested€in€the€character€of€word/world€relations,€try€it;€you€should€be€intrigued.€Ð \ Ѐ §Ý ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€What€I€find€on€ð ðdiscoveryðð€by€word€search€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ôððs€published€articles€is€mainly€reference€(notably€€1990b,€p.33;Ð Â ÐÓ  Ó1990c,€p.137;€1992a,€pp.134,160,163,167)€to€Reichenbachððs€distinction€between€the€ð ðcontext€of€discoveryðð€and€ð ðcontext€ofÐ n¬ Ðjustificationðð,€about€which€he€says€nothing€beyond€advising€retention€of€some€updated€version€thereof,€and€mention€of€discovery€inÐ X Ðhis€own€research.€Also,€(1992c)€speaks€repeatedly€of€discovery€as€a€normal€scientific€activity.€But€in€his€unpublished€1990b€heÐ Æ Ðapproved€of€discovery€most€unequivocally€in€comment€on€Watson€&€Crickððs€famous€DNA€finding:€ð ðThe€example€also€shows€howÐ r° ÐPopper,€Reichenbach,€and€the€Vienna€Ô_ÔpositivistsÔ_Ô€were€wrong€in€saying€there€could€be€no€logic€of€discovery€(despite€Popperððs€title)ððÐ \ Ð(1990b,p.€25).)€In€contrast,€Popperððs€position€on€discovery€was€hard-core€negative:€Despite€the€tin-ear€translation€of€his€ððÔ_ÔLogikÔ_Ô€derÐ Ê ÐÔ_ÔForschungÔ_Ôðð€Ô_ÔbooktitleÔ_Ô€as€ððThe€Logic€of€Scientific€Discoveryðð€(its€last€word€should€have€been€ððinquiryðð€or€ððresearchðð),€he€seems€to€haveÐ v´ Ðrejected€altogether€the€possibility€that€a€theory€might€have€some€epistemic€merit€prior€to€testing.€(Cf.€ð ðThe€initial€stage,€the€act€ofÐ "` Ðconceiving€or€inventing€a€theory,€seems€to€me€neither€to€call€for€logical€analysis€nor€to€be€susceptible€of€itðð€ð!ð€Popper,€1959,€p.31.Ð Î   ÐSince€this€act€perforce€incorporates€some€degree€of€uncertain€belief,€Popper€presumably€excluded€this€outset€belief€from€the€reachÐ z¸  Ðof€normative€appraisal€as€well.)€Ð & d  ÐÔ‡Â÷nÂÂ$Â÷nÔ.×ÃF×× C ×Ô#†$Â÷nÂÂÂ÷n+#Ô×ÃG×× C ×€ eÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôöíòX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®Xò$ôöí|#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®ÔOne€can€acknowledge€with€respect€that€ground€has€been€broken€without€agreeing€that€the€ground€broken€€is€fertile.€Ð  РêÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôöíòX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®Xò$ôöí|#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®Ôð ðSpielraumðð€(play-space)€is€Meehlððs€Feiglian€label€for€the€target€parameterððs€range€of€feasibly€alternative€values.€€€Ð  ÐIf€that€isnððt€logically€bounded,€its€limits€are€set€by€current€ð ðbackground€knowledgeðð.€Ð ¿ Ð lÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôöíòX$XÔ€Ô#†$X®Xò$ôöí|#ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$X®Ôð ðExplanansðð:€(òòaóó)€An€assertion€proffered€to€explain€something;€or€(òòbóó)€the€state€of€affairs€so€asserted.€Ð Â Ð Ý ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€$ôöíòX$XÔWhenÔ L L Ô€a€Ô ÷ ÷ Ô€nascentÔ ! ! Ô€theoryÔ  Ô€has€openÔ ‚‚ Ô€parameters,Ô ¼¼ Ô€itÔ OO Ô€isÔ õõ Ô€difficultÔ BB Ô€if€Ô  Ô€notÔ  Ô€impossible€Ô DD Ôto€€findÔ 11 Ô€a€graceful€way€byÐ Â ÐÓ  Ó€which€these€can€become€specified€under€the€hypothesis-testing€rubric€for€theory€development.€Consider€the€followingÐ ¨æ Ðchallenge€to€hypothesis€testingððs€alleged€superiority€over€inductive€discovery€in€this€case:€Ð g¥ ÐÌà  àSuppose€that€you€have€access€to€a€large€database€(many€thousands€of€human€subjects)€with€observations€onÐ å# Ðmany€items€of€personal€information€(medical€assessments,€sociological€and€genetic€characteristics,€scores€on€the€itemsÐ ¤â Ðin€aptitude€and€achievement€scales,€etc.,€details€of€which€donððt€matter€here).€And€you€have€also€conceived€a€novel€theoryÐ c¡ ÐòòTóóòòòò0óóóó€of€human€development€which€implies€that€certain€parameters€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó€of€these€items'€joint€distribution€in€the€unboundedÐ "` Ðpopulation€of€which€your€observed€subjects€are€a€finite€sample€should€be€appreciably€non-null.€(€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó€comprises,€say,Ð á Ðcertain€special€contrasts€in€this€score€distribution,€or€open€parameters€in€a€structural€model€thereof€for€which€this€dataÐ  Þ  Ðconfiguration€enables€a€determinate€solution.€"Null"€is€a€baseline€expectation,€òòinter€aliaóó€zero€for€relational€and€contrastÐ _   ÿ Ðmeasures,€and€Normal€for€higher€distribution€moments.)€Moreover,€you€are€not€content€merely€to€support€òòTóóòò0óó€byÐ p Ðestablishing€a€few€tiny€departures€from€Null€among€the€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó€parameters,€but€seek€strong€corroboration€of€òòTóóòò0óó€'s€strengtheningÐ /¿ Ðto€a€€òòTóóòòòòióóóó€that€specifies€each€parameter€by€an€interval€whose€thickness€(width)€is€negligible.€How€can€you€corroborate€thickÐ î~ Ðpredictions€of€these€parameters€ð!ð€òòpersistentlyóó€corroborate,€not€just€mix€hits€and€misses€ð!ð€even€as€you€revise€òòTóóòò0óó€to€shrinkÐ ­= Ðtheir€widths?€€One€way€to€do€this€(best?€only?)€is€through€a€series€òòSóóòò1óó,€òòSóóòò2óó,€...,€òòSóóòòióó,€...,€òòÔ_ÔSóóòònÔ_Ôóó€of€increasingly€large€samples€drawnÐ lü Ðrandomly€without€replacement€from€your€database.€The€scores€observed€in€each€òòSóóòòióó€yield€a€sample€estimate€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_ÔóóÔ«ÿ’ ’ «ÿ«ÿÔÔÛÿ–+»Ô^Ô%+»–Ô€of€theÐ +» Ðpopulation€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó-values€together€with€an€appraisal€of€their€uncertainty,€which€advise€you€€to€replace€òòTóóòòióó€by€a€òòTóóòòi+1óó€positingÐ êz Ðupdated€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó-values€from€which€you€then€predict€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó€€in€òòSóóòòi+1óó€less€thickly€than€in€òòSóóòòióó.€(One€good€way€to€update€the€predictionÐ ©9 Ðintervals€is€by€making€them€high-òòpóó€confidence€zones€estimated€for€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó€from€all€the€previous€samples€combined.€Or€if€forÐ h ø Ðsome€reason€that€seems€illegitimate,€you€could€use€just€the€information€in€òòSóóòòióó.)€€If€you€pace€this€series€astutely€with€a€veryÐ ' ·  Ðlarge€size€of€final€òòÔ_ÔSóóòònÔ_Ôóó,€you€can€expect€strong€corroboration€of€your€final€òòTóóòònóó's€thin€prediction€of€òòÔ_ÔSóóòònÔ_Ôóó's€òòÔ_ÔðMðÔ_Ôóó-values.€AndÐ æ v  Ðdepending€on€how€you€think€corroboration€of€one€theory€rubs€off€on€others€similar€to€it,€òòTóóòònóó€should€inherit€someÐ ¥ 5  Ðaccumulated€€corroboration€from€the€prediction€performances€of€prior€òòTóóòòióó€in€the€series€as€well.€If€you€do€admitÐ d ô  Ðcorroboration€transfer€among€similar€theories,€you€may€want€your€number€of€steps€leading€to€òòTóóòònóó€to€be€rather€large,€sinceÐ # ³  Ðthat€gives€you€many€corroborations€to€combine.€Otherwise,€òònóó€needn't€be€larger€than€2.€Ð â r  ÐÌà  à€All€this€is€very€well:€We€can€indeed€modify€each€òòTóóòòióó's€parameter€conjecture€as€current€data€sampling€advisesÐ `ð  Ðand€corroborate€the€improvement€in€a€new€sample.€But€how€might€choosing€òònóó€to€be€2€or€more€yield€an€Ô_ÔepistemicallyÔ_ÔÐ ¯  Ðfirmer€conclusion€than€just€òònóó€=€1,€that€is,€simply€estimating€€Ô_ÔðMðÔ_Ôððs€component€values€by€tight€intervals€(sampling-theoreticÐ Þn  Ðconfidence€zones€or,€if€you€prefer,€some€alternative€expression€of€residual€uncertainty)€obtained€from€the€full€databaseÐ - Ðwithout€making€any€prior€predictions€of€their€values?€If€we€arrive€at€the€same€data-driven€theory€at€end,€why€should€itÐ \ì Ðmatter€if€any€preceding€corroborated€predictions€have€been€taken€from€it?€At€least€in€this€case€(not€in€all,€but€that's€aÐ « Ðlarger€story),€outset€induction€from€the€full€database,€leaving€no€fragment€of€that€behind€on€which€to€attemptÐ Új Ðcorroboration,€surely€yields€fully€as€much€support€for€òòTòòòòóónóóóó€as€does€some€tortuous€sequence€of€partial-data€corroborations.Ð ™) ÐI'm€not€suggesting€that€corroboration€is€unimportant.€Obviously€a€theory's€track€record€matters€when€we€contemplateÐ Xè Ðgambling€on€its€implications€that€absent€the€theory€are€still€uncertain.€And€seeking€to€test€a€novel€prediction€can€leadÐ § Ðus€to€Ô_ÔabductivelyÔ_Ô€provocative€observations€that€we€ÑC/ÎA4ÑÑ C Ñwould€never€have€stumbled€upon€absent€that€guidance.€But€I€doÐ Öf Ðsubmit€that€if€a€data€finding€òòDóó€urged€by€theory€òòTóó€does€not€impart€credence€to€òòTóó€regardless€of€whether€we€wereÐ •% Ðantecedently€aware€that€òòTóó€predicted€it,€òòDóó's€epistemic€support€for€òòTóó€is€illusory.€Debate,€anyone?€€Ð Tä Ѐ ïÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€How€deeply€should€we€attempt€to€explain€the€cogency€of€induction?€I€canððt€say,€but€hereððs€a€comparable€ontological€€Ð  ÐÓ  Ó€issue:€Why€does€the€universe€exist?€If€we€argue€that€God€(or€something€akin€thereto)€created€it,€then€how€do€we€explain€the€existenceÐ n¬ Ðof€God?€Ð X Ð ÅÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Ô€$Â÷nÂX$XÔHereððs€yet€another€theoretic€alternative:€Schizy€genes€and€schizy€plasmids€both€exist,€but€never€co-occur€inÐ Â Ðpostpartum€humans€because€gametes€receiving€both€never€survive.€Letððs€presume€that€TsM€and€TsR€both€deny€this€duality€€Ð ¨æ Ðof€Ô_ÔschizotaxiaÔ_Ô.€Were€space€to€permit,€it€would€be€instructive€to€discuss€this€possible€duality€as€an€additional€competitor€to€Ð T’ ÐÔ_ÔTsMÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔTsRÔ_Ô.Ð > Ѐ€ gÝ ƒ4r$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôæ5òX$XÔ€What€I€find€on€ð ðdiscoveryðð€by€word€search€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ôððs€published€articles€is€mainly€reference€(notably€Ð £ Ð1990b,€p.33;€1990c,€p.137;€1992a,€pp.134,160,163,167)€to€Reichenbachððs€famous€distinction€between€the€ð ðcontext€ofÐ b¿ Ðdiscoveryðð€and€ð ðcontext€of€justificationðð,€about€which€he€says€nothing€beyond€advising€retention€of€some€updatedÐ !~ Ðversion€thereof,€and€mention€of€discovery€in€his€own€research.€Also,€(1992c)€speaks€repeatedly€of€discovery€as€aÐ à= Ðnormal€scientific€activity.€But€in€his€unpublished€1990b€he€approved€of€discovery€most€unequivocally€in€commentÐ Ÿü Ðon€Watson€&€Crickððs€famous€DNA€finding:€ð ðThe€example€also€shows€how€Popper,€Reichenbach,€and€the€ViennaÐ ^» ÐÔ_ÔpositivistsÔ_Ô€were€wrong€in€saying€there€could€be€no€logic€of€discovery€(despite€Popperððs€title)ðð€(1990b,p.€25).)€InÐ z Ðcontrast,€Popperððs€position€on€discovery€was€hard-core€negative:€Despite€the€tin-ear€translation€of€his€ððÔ_ÔLogikÔ_Ô€der€Ð Ü9  ЇÔ#†$X¡BXò$ôæ5|#Ô gÝ ƒ4r$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡$ôæ5òX$XÔ€What€I€find€on€ð ðdiscoveryðð€by€word€search€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ôððs€published€articles€is€mainly€reference€(notably€Ð £ Ð1990b,€p.33;€1990c,€p.137;€1992a,€pp.134,160,163,167)€to€Reichenbachððs€famous€distinction€between€the€ð ðcontext€ofÐ b¿ Ðdiscoveryðð€and€ð ðcontext€of€justificationðð,€about€which€he€says€nothing€beyond€advising€retention€of€some€updatedÐ !~ Ðversion€thereof,€and€mention€of€discovery€in€his€own€research.€Also,€(1992c)€speaks€repeatedly€of€discovery€as€aÐ à= Ðnormal€scientific€activity.€But€in€his€unpublished€1990b€he€approved€of€discovery€most€unequivocally€in€commentÐ Ÿü Ðon€Watson€&€Crickððs€famous€DNA€finding:€ð ðThe€example€also€shows€how€Popper,€Reichenbach,€and€the€ViennaÐ ^» ÐÔ_ÔpositivistsÔ_Ô€were€wrong€in€saying€there€could€be€no€logic€of€discovery€(despite€Popperððs€title)ðð€(1990b,p.€25).)€InÐ z Ðcontrast,€Popperððs€position€on€discovery€was€hard-core€negative:€Despite€the€tin-ear€translation€of€his€ððÔ_ÔLogikÔ_Ô€der€Ð Ü9  ЇÔ#†$X¡BXò$ôæ5|#Ô µÝ ƒ4x$ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€$Â÷nÂX$XÔ€Iððm€not€sure€whether€Meehl€had€any€basis€for€presumption€(c)€beyond€the€near-negligible€size€of€a€smallÐ Â Ðprobabilityððs€square.€But€were€it€needed,€he€could€have€posited€that€a€double€dose€of€this€factor€is€lethal€to€zygote€development.Ð n¬ Ð- ù-- ù- Ñ   Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ î Ñ Ñ Â Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ î Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ î Ñ #Ñ X ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ î ÑÑ  Ñ Ñ 9 Ñ Ñ £ Ñ "Ñ w ÑÑ€3 À` Ñ Ñ w ÑÑ Â Ñ Ñ Â Ñ Ñ   Ñ Ñ X Ñ Ñ   Ñ Ñ  Ñ Ñ , ÑÑ  ÑÝ ƒ"'S!ÝÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑw°ÑÒ„°ÒÒϰÒÑî°ÑÑ€RttÑÑ€U˜3ÑÑ€W_ ÑÑ€MïhÑÔ€$ôöíòX$XÔÑ€SlJÑÑ€XnÑÑ€c/VÑÑ€\XÑÑ€]_[Ñ€€[€Corrected€update€of€Rozeboom,€W.€W.€(2005).€€Meehl€on€metatheory.€Journal€of€Clinical€€Psychology,€61,€1317„1354.€]€Ð w ÐÌÑ€JÑÑ8€$®$XXdædÈ8ÑÒ„ÏÒÓ   ÓÓ  ÓÓ ÜÜù!°œXÓÓ|ÓÔ€ôöíòò$ôöíÔÓ  ÓÑ€/_ÑÑ€gP¸ ÑÑ€LP¸ ÑÑ  ÑÑ€KÏDÑÑ€N_[ÑÑ€V_RÑNovember,€Ô_Ô2005Ô_ÔÐ õ~ ÐÔ€X®XòôöíÔÓ  ÓÓ]IÜÜgò} ˜ #®9ÅTßjõ›& ±!ù!Ì$W&¬&ÜÜù!]ÓMeehl€on€Metatheoryòò*Ð qú ÐÓ  ÓÓQÜÜDœôL¤Ü܃‹ ˜ ƒ‹ÅTƒ‹ƒ‹ù!Ì$W&UQÓóóàQÌÌ=ìàWm.€W.€RozeboomˆÐ ív ÐÓ  ÓÓø|ÓàQ““:ìàUniversity€of€AlbertaˆÐ iò ÐÓcIÜÜgò} ˜ #®9ÅTßjõ›& ±!ù!Ì$W&¬&ÜÜDœƒXcÓÌÔ€&×%XX®ÔòòAbstracóót:€A€critical€survey€of€almost€everything€Meehl€ever€wrote€on€the€philosophy€of€scientific€research.Ð Y â ÐÑ  ÑÔ‡$&×%%&×ÔÔ€$ôöíò%$&×ÔÔáeeááÔÔ‡ÿØ aQ ÚÔ¹Ó  Ó€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€*I€want€to€acknowledge€my€debt€and€gratitude€to€W.€M.€Grove,€Meehl's€close€friend€and€colleague,€Ôa1 º Ð Y ԀР1 º  ÐÔ‡ÿ° 9 ) ² ÔÔáeeááÔ€€€€€€€€for€his€cogent€referee€commentary€that€helped€this€biographic€safari€to€stay€on€track€of€the€big€game.€Ð ° 9  ÐÔ#†ôöíòò$ôöí#ÔÓ  ӀР¨ 1  ÐÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓl1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&Ü܃‹ ˜ ƒ‹ÅTƒ‹ƒ‹ù!Ì$W&UlÓÓTøÓÔ€&×%òôöíÔà Ü àInvitation€to€contribute€a€memorial€overview€of€Paul€Meehl's€contributions€to€psychonomic€metatheoryÐ   )  Ðhas€been€an€honor€I€could€not€decline.€€But€attempting€to€do€even€scant€justice€to€this€theme€has€proved€to€be€aÐ ô}  Ðhumbling€experience.€€I€have,€of€course,€long€appreciated€Meehl's€stature€as€our€discipline's€foremost€conceptÐ HÑ Ðanalyst:€€My€first€conceptual€publication,€written€in€graduate€school,€was€a€defense€of€MacCorquodale€&€Meehl'sÐ œ% Ð(1948)€prevailingly€misunderstood€distinction€between€intervening€variables€and€hypothetical€concepts;€andÐ ðy Ðalthough€my€thesis€research€on€the€behavior„theoretic€"What€is€learned?"€issue€was€designed€before€I€learned€ofÐ DÍ ÐMeehl's€work€on€latent€learning,€his€1954€monograph€with€MacCorquodale€on€Tolmanian€expectancy€theory€„„€byÐ ˜! Ðan€order€of€magnitude€the€best€work€of€psychonomic€concept€explication€to€have€then€appeared€„„€reached€me€inÐ ìu Ðtime€to€enhance€my€already„strong€desire€for€a€postdoc€at€the€Univ.€of€Minnesota's€Center€for€the€Philosophy€ofÐ @É ÐScience€where€Meehl€was€then€an€active€participant.€€My€fellowship€application€was€successful,€yielding€twoÐ ” Ðyears€in€the€ferment€of€Feigl's€group€that€benefitted€me€enormously.€€But€Meehl€had€discontinued€his€activeÐ èq ÐCenter€participation€shortly€before€my€arrival,€and€to€my€great€loss€and€regret€I€never€managed€to€bring€about€anyÐ <Å Ðpersonal€interaction€with€him€then€or€later.€€€It€was€clear€to€me€early€on€that€Meehl€was€special.€€But€just€howÐ  Ðawesomely€special€I€did€not€fully€appreciate€until€my€recent€immersion€in€his€full€publication€output€that€includesÐ äm Ða€richly€informative€autobiography€(Meehl,€1989).€€The€latter€reveals€him€to€have€been€extraordinarily€gifted€inÐ 8 Á Ðboth€his€intellectual€endowment€and,€despite€certain€personal€tragedies€on€which€he€does€not€dwell,€an€earlyÐ Œ!  Ðenvironment€that€nurtured€its€maturation.€€It€is€rare€for€an€adolescent€to€have€ready€access€to€college„levelÐ à"i! Ðliterature€on€psychology,€statistics,€law,€logic€and€analytic€philosophy,€much€less€the€motivation€and€ability€toÐ 4$½" Ðdevour€this€with€comprehension.€€Just€as€extraordinary€was€having€a€gang€of€friends€(his€"Young€Logician'sÐ ˆ%$ ÐGroup"€„„€1989,€p.342)€whose€version€of€work„up€baseball€was€turns€at€pitching€arguments€for€randomly€assignedÐ Ü&e% Ðpositions€on€religious/political€controversies€with€failures€in€a€pitcher's€argument€to€withstand€reasoned€criticismÐ 0(¹&  Ðscored€as€runs„against.€€(The€recreational„sports€metaphor€is€mine,€not€Meehl's.)€€And€at€his€Minneapolis€doorstepÐ „) (! Ðwas€a€major„league€university€availing€psychologists€and€analytic€philosophers€at€the€leading€edges€of€theirÐ Ø*a)" Ðrespective€specialties€with€whom€he€was€quick€to€establish€rapport€when€only€a€college€undergraduate.€€TheÐ ,,µ*# Ðwealth€of€productions€that€ensued€from€this€unique€confluence€of€interests,€abilities,€and€opportunities€is€what€weÐ €- ,$ Ðcelebrate€here.€€Meehl's€autobiography€makes€abundantly€plain€that€intelligent€thinking€„„€its€pursuit,€appreciation,Ð Ô.]-%( ÐÑKÏDÑâ KâÑ wÑâ KâÑ  Ñand€practice€„„€was€the€dominant€force€in€his€life.€€And€intelligence€for€him€wasn't€just€acquisition€and€retention€ofÐ » Ðdiverse€archived€information€(though€he€wasn't€averse€to€flaunting€his€superiority€at€that€in€his€writings)€but,€moreÐ T Ðimportant,€proficiency€in€articulating€the€deeper€complexities€of€concepts€and€issues€while€giving€all€diverse€Ð c¨ Ðoutlooks€on€these€a€fair€but€critical€hearing.€€So€it€is€no€surprise€to€find€that€Meehl€was€much€concerned€hroughoutÐ ·ü Ðhis€career€with€the€theory€and€praxis€of€effective€reasoning.€€Much€of€this€was€abstract€metatheory€on€"hypothesisÐ  P Ðtesting"€which€he€developed€as€an€admittedly€revisionist€Popperian€and€on€which€this€commentary€will€eventuallyÐ _ ¤ Ðfocus.€€But€unlike€most€of€us€in€academia,€Meehl€also€shouldered€responsibility€for€theoretical€inferences€havingÐ ³ ø Ðreal„world€consequences.€€Mainly€these€were€personality€appraisals,€creating/adjudicating/applying€concepts€ofÐ  L  Ðenduring€human€attributes€that€importantly€influence€what€people€feel€and€do.€€And€although€his€initial€MMPIÐ [   Ðwork€thereon€in€collaboration€with€Hathaway€€was€comparable€to€an€industrial€engineer's€crafting€prototypes€fromÐ ¯ô  Ðdesign€schematics,€he€soon€became€a€practicing€psychotherapist€as€well,€applying€theorized€personality€constructsÐ H  Ðto€assess€his€clients€and€guide€their€therapy.€€I€am€not€qualified€to€reflect€on€Meehl's€contributions€to€clinicalÐ Wœ  Ðpsychology;€I€merely€note€that€his€theorizing€had€consequences€in€the€real€lives€of€real€people€for€whom€heÐ «ð  Ðundertook€professional€responsibilities.€€Neither€can€I€judge€the€extent€to€which€the€feedback€this€gave€him€on€theÐ ÿD  Ðpractical€payoff€of€these€constructs€influenced€the€development€of€his€metatheoretic€views;€but€there€must€surelyÐ S˜ Ðhave€been€an€effect€which€future€exegesis€on€Meehl's€legacy€may€want€to€explore.Ð §ì Ðà Ü àBe€that€as€it€may,€it€is€well€worth€appreciating€that€Meehl€was€deeply€involved€over€the€full€gamut€ofÐ û@ Ðpsychonomic€theorizing€from€hands„on€applications€to€human€affairs,€through€creating€and€adjudicating€his€ownÐ O” Ðpersonality„theoretic€hypotheses€derived€from€that€experience,€to€effectively€incorporating€in€his€metatheoreticalÐ £è Ðwritings€(though€more€as€consumer€than€producer)€the€most€advanced€views€on€the€cognitive€character€ofÐ ÷< Ðscientific€theories€developed€by€modern€analytically€sophisticated€philosophers€of€science.€€I€find€it€helpful€toÐ K Ðoverview€Meehl's€abundant€contributions€within€this€arena€as€development€of€persistent€themes€that€may€beÐ Ÿä Ðdifferentiated€as€Ð ó 8 ÐÓ  ÓÓªTÓÌÓTªÓà Ü àA.€The€nature€of€theoretical€constructs.Ð ñ"6 Ðà Ü àB.€Statistical€diagnosis€of€clinical€categories.Ð E$Š  ÐÑ  Ñà Ü àC.€Detection€of€hypothesized€taxa.Ð ™%Þ! Ðà Ü àD.€Dislodging€psychology's€Null„Hypothesis€Significance€Test€(NHST)€incubus.Ð í&2# Ðà Ü àE.€Complexified€hypothesis€testing€(confronting€auxiliary€hypotheses€and€verisimilitude).Ð A(†$ Ðà Ü àF.€Cliometric€theory€appraisal€(a€late„career€reincarnation€of€theme€B).Ð •)Ú% ÐÑ  ÑÓªTÓÌÓ  ÓÓTªÓThis€listing€fails€to€record€that€Meehl's€superb€ability€to€recognize,€articulate,€and€clarify€confoundings,€hiddenÐ “+Ø' Ðcomplexities,€and€other€underappreciated€obscurities€in€our€important€working€concepts€(I'm€pretty€good€at€thisÐ ç,,)  Ðmyself,€so€believe€me€when€I€tip€my€hat€to€the€master)€also€graced€contributions€to€religion€and€jurisprudenceÐ ;.€*! ÐÑN_[Ñâ NâÑ Ñâ NâÑ  Ñ(Meehl€et€al.€1958;€Meehl,€1959;€Meehl,€1965;€Livermore€&€Meehl,€1967;€Meehl,€1971).€€But€these€are€notÐ p Ðplainly€thematic,€so€I€shall€say€no€more€about€them€here.€€Neither€shall€I€say€much€about€themes€B,€C,€and€FÐ ÄT Ðinsomuch€as€others€in€this€symposium€are€far€more€qualified€than€I€to€do€so.€€But€A€and€D€need€overview€hereÐ ¨ Ðdespite€their€formerly€hot€issues€for€psychonomic€science€having€become€largely€quiescent€in€recent€years.€€And€IÐ lü Ðshall€also€argue€that€Meehl's€development€of€E€suffers€from€major€omissions.Ð ÀP ÐÓ  ÓÌA.€Meehl€on€theoretical€constructs.Ð h ø ÐÓ  Óà Ü àAs€old„timers€in€this€venue€will€recall,€psychology's€vocalized€metatheory€during€the€first€half€of€the€20thÐ ¼ L  ÐCentury€was€strongly€polarized€not€merely€over€which€current€theories€might€be€plausible€but€more€fundamentallyÐ    Ðon€whether€scientific€psychology€could€ever€use€mentalistic€concepts€save€as€targets€of€derision.€€And€theÐ dô  Ðsemantics€of€theoretical€terms€also€loomed€large€then€in€theoretical€physics€and€advanced€philosophy€of€science,Ð ¸H  Ðwhich€argued€less„that„pellucid€theses€under€the€labels€"logical€positivism"€and€"operational€definitions"€that€soonÐ  œ  Ðbecame€€psychonomic€buzzwords€as€well.€€To€overview€this€issue€„„€it€was€important,€and€remains€so€even€thoughÐ `ð  Ðit€should€no€longer€seem€threatening€„„€and€Meehl's€contribution€thereto,€I€cannot€improve€on€Rozeboom,€1984,Ð ´D  Ðexcerpted€here€with€some€compressions€marked€by€square€brackets:€Ð ˜ ÐÓ  ÓÌÒ°„ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÓÌÌÓÔ€ôöíò%&×Ôà  àThe€skeptical€temperament€that€pervades€science€and€analytical€philosophy€takes€these€epistemic„Ð °@ Ðengineering€problems€of€explanation€very€seriously€indeed.€€...€€Logical€positivism€courageously€sought€to€face€downÐ ¿O Ðthis€doubt€[whether€explanatory€theories€can€ever€qualify€as€scientific€knowledge]€in€the€only€way€that€classicalÐ Î^ Ðepistemology€could€envision,€namely,€by€proposing€that€theoretical€sentences€which€seem€to€make€claims€aboutÐ Ým Ðunobserved€entities€do€not€really€do€so€[but€rather,€must€be€translatable€into€sentences€using€only€our€data€languageÐ ì| Ðif€they€are€to€be€cognitively€meaningful.€€Operationism€supported€this€positivist€thesis€by€holding€that€suchÐ û‹ Ðtranslations€could€be€contrived€from€data„language€statements€of€form€€'If€...€then€___'.€€€However,]€though€virtuallyÐ  š Ðall€theoretical€constructs€in€scientific€practice€have€analytic€òòif/thenóó€implications,€seldom€do€theoretical€meaningsÐ  © Ðseem€to€be€òòexhaustibleóó€by€a€conjunction€of€test/outcome€conditionals.€...€But€explicit€definition€is€not€the€only€way€inÐ (!¸ Ðwhich€new€concepts€can€be€€derived€from€old€ones;€and€as€the€possibility€of€less€straitened€forms€of€definitionÐ 7"Ç Ðbecame€appreciated,€logical€positivism€gave€way€in€the€1950s€to€the€empirical€realism€long€championed€by€Feigl€(cf.Ð F#Ö Ð1950,€1956)€under€the€title€"logical€empiricism."€€This€is€the€thesis€that€although€theoretical€terms€get€their€meaningsÐ U$å  Ðfrom€the€data„language€contexts€in€which€they€are€used,€what€they€semantically€òòdesignateóó€are€causal€features€ofÐ d%ô! Ðnatural€reality€generally€concealed€from€perception€but€knowable€from€their€data€consequences.€...Ð s&# Ѐà  àWithin€psychology,€moreover,€contrary€to€the€mythology€widely€propagated€by€ignorant€or€malevolentÐ ‚'$ Ðbystanders,€the€methodology€of€scientific€constructs€practiced€by€[most]€leading€behaviorists€and€other€theorists€ofÐ ‘(!% Ðoperationist€persuasion€...€was€an€indigenous€empirical€realism€long€before€philosophers€learned€how€to€distinguishÐ  )0&  Ðthis€from€positivism.€€When€Hull€and€Tolman€sought€to€develop€behavior€theory€in€terms€of€"intervening€variables"Ð ¯*?'! Ðthey€understood€this€label€òònotóó€in€the€positivistic€sense€later€proposed€for€it€by€MacCorquodale€&€Meehl€(1948)€but€asÐ ¾+N(" Ðdemarcation€for€hypothesized€causal€mediators€("hypothetical€constructs"€in€MacCorquodale€&€Meehl's€sense).€€[SeeÐ Í,])# Ðâ âespecially€Hull€1943€pp.21„23€and€Tolman€1959€pp.97f.]Ð Ü-l*$ ÐÑ  Ñà  àIn€explicit€opposition€to€positivist€doctrine,€the€view€that€psychology's€theoretical€constructs€designate€realÐ p Ðâ âunderlying€causes€through€their€conceptual€roles€in€a€"nomological€network"€was€forcefully€articulated€by€CronbachÐ  Ðand€Meehl€(1955).€€And€continued€efforts€by€psychologists€to€pin€down€what€they€meant€by€òòoperationismóó€(whichÐ Ž Ðfew€comprehended€in€the€philosophers'€narrowly€technical€sense)€eventually€clarified€this,€too,€as€our€version€ofÐ - Ðempirical€realism.€€[See€especially€Garner,€Hake,€and€Eriksen,€1956,€p.158;€also€Campbell€and€Fisk,€1959€p.€101,Ð ¬< Ðand€Campbell,€1959€p.175ff.]Ð »K ÐÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÌÒ„°ÒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€&×%òôöíÔÓÌÌÓà Ü àThe€brevity€of€reference€to€Meehl's€work€in€this€abridged€overview€does€inadequate€justice€to€itsÐ Ù i Ðpsychonomic€impact€at€the€time.€€The€paper€with€MacCorquodale€evoked€considerable€response€which,€though€ofÐ - ½ Ðmostly€dubious€quality,€served€at€least€€to€make€serious€metatheoretic€debate€welcome€in€our€literature.׃1×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€And€hisÐ    Ðlater€paper€with€Cronbach€empowered€psychometric€assessment€with€€the€advanced€understanding€of€theoreticalÐ Õe  Ðconcepts'€nature€and€validation€developed€by€Feigl€and€his€collaborators.€€This€introduced€"construct€validity"€intoÐ )¹  ÐAPAððs€official€Test€Standards€manual€as€commended€concern€for€the€accuracy€with€which€test€instrumentsÐ }   Ðdiagnose€non„manifest€attributes€thought€to€underlie€overt€behavior.€€Although€Meehl€never€published€anyÐ Ña  Ðdistinctive€views€of€his€own€on€the€semantics€of€theoretical€constructs,€he€continued€throughout€his€career€toÐ %µ Ðendorse€the€philosophically€sophisticated€€view€of€"open"€concepts€and€implicit€definition.€€(See€Meehl,€1978,Ð y  Ðp.815;€1990òòaóó,€p.240f.;€2002,€361f.;€2004€online,€p.8].)€Ð Í] ÐÓ  ÓÌB.€Meehl€on€clinical€diagnosis€by€statistical€inference.Ð u ÐÓ  Óà Ü àHis€early€interest€in€clinical€psychology€maturing€into€hands„on€psychiatric€practice,€conjoined€with€hisÐ ÉY Ðextensive€engagement€in€psychometric€development€of€quantitative€instruments€to€assess€clinically€significantÐ ­ Ðpersonality€traits,€uniquely€positioned€Meehl€to€write€THE€book€(Meehl,€1954)€on€tough„minded€inferenceÐ q Ðapplied€to€tender„minded€practicalities.€€Despite€the€galvanizing€effect€this€seems€to€have€had€in€its€milieu,€debateÐ ÅU Ðon€the€actuarial€approach€to€clinical€diagnosis€was€already€well„mounted€and€Meehl€did€not€in€this€work€advanceÐ  © Ðits€applied€methodology.€€What€he€did€accomplish,€for€any€reader€who€could€follow€carefully€articulatedÐ m!ý Ðexplanations,€was€expunging€large€conceptual€confusions€that€were€apparently€degrading€the€use€of€quantitativeÐ Á"Q Ðmethods€in€clinical€practice.€€And€in€so€doing,€he€powerfully€demonstrated€that€James'€(1897)€famous€tough„Ð $¥  Ðminded/tender„minded€division€of€intellectual€styles€is€not€strictly€dichotomous€despite€often€appearing€so:€Ð i%ù! ÐMeehl€was€as€tough„minded€as€we€come.€€Yet€he€had€so€receptive€an€appreciation€for€the€riches€in€(some)€tender„Ð ½&M# Ðminded€notions€that€he€repeatedly€(not€just€in€this€instance)€felt€it€worth€his€while€to€clear€away€the€obscuritiesÐ (¡$ Ðthat€so€often€degrade€those,€like€cleansing€classic€artworks€of€accumulated€grunge€to€bring€out€their€underlyingÐ e)õ% ÐÑRttÑâ RâÑ  ÑÑîîÑâ RâÑ  Ñelegance.€€Theme€B€in€Meehl's€career€is€not€a€foreground€concern€of€this€essay,€but€one€way€or€another€it€isÐ p Ðbackground€to€those€that€are.Ð ÄT ÐÓ  ÓÌC.€€Meehl€on€taxon€detection.Ð lü ÐÓ  Óà Ü àDuring€the€late€'50s€(cf.€Meehl,€1989,€p.365),€Meehl€developed€an€interest€in€the€roots€of€schizophreniaÐ ÀP Ðthat€infused€his€work€for€the€remainder€of€his€career.€€First€came€his€theory€of€manifest€schizophrenia's€etiologyÐ  ¤ Ð(Meehl,€1962)€positing€that€this€originates€in€a€single€defective€dominant€gene€„„€a€"schizogene"€(Meehl,€1972,Ð h ø Ðfig.1)€„„€which€causes€development€of€a€neurological€disorder€("schizotaxia")€whose€afflictees€"become,€on€allÐ ¼ L  Ðactually€existing€social€learning€regimes,€schizotypic€in€personality€organization"€which€in€turn€disposesÐ    Ðdevelopment€of€overt€schizophrenia€in€a€minority€of€cases€having€"other€...€constitutional€weaknesses€and€put€on€aÐ dô  Ðbad€regime€by€schizophrenogenic€mothers"€(1962,€p.[143€in€Psychodiagnosis:€Selected€Papers]).€€Or€as€he€put€itÐ ¸H  Ðin€1989€when€still€unhappy€with€how€firmly€he€had€established€this,€"we€believe€[that€we€can€soon]€definitivelyÐ  œ  Ðcorroborate€or€refute€my€conjecture€that€schizophrenia€is€a€low„probability€(p<.10)€decompensation€of€a€softÐ `ð  Ðneurological€integrative€disorder€(schizotaxia)€which€is€inherited€as€an€autosomal€dominant€of€100€percentÐ ´D  Ðpenetrance."€€(1989,€p.376).Ð ˜ Ðà Ü àMeehl's€dissatisfaction€voiced€in€this€autumnal€quotation€was€no€way€incurred€by€want€of€testing.€€ForÐ \ì Ðquite€some€time€he€had€sought€to€support€his€schizogene€theory€with€hard€quantitative€evidence;€and€not€findingÐ °@ Ðavailable€techniques€of€data€analysis€entirely€suited€to€his€need,€undertook€to€develop€his€own.€€As€fate€wouldÐ ” Ðhave€it,€€this€€was€an€ideal€challenge€for€Meehl€to€demonstrate€that€he€could€practice€the€ÔîîÔmetascience€Ô² ² ÔÔË Ë Ôhe€preached€Ð Xè Є„€defining€theoretical€constructs€as€nodes€in€a€nomological€net€(Feigl)€on€one€hand,€and€theory€appraisal€byÐ ¬< Ðstrong€empirical€tests€(Popper)€on€the€other.€€And€although€the€logic€of€fitting€nomological€nets€to€multivariateÐ  Ðquantitative€data€had€already€become€familiar€in€the€burgeoning€literature€on€mathematical€models,€it€seems€thatÐ Tä Ðhis€distrust€of€how€suited€those€were€to€the€distributional€structure€posited€by€his€conjecture€„„€categorical€sourceÐ ¨ 8 Ðattributes€("taxa")€working€with€manifold€additional€influences€to€produce€observable€outputs€most€usefullyÐ ü!Œ Ðidealized€as€gradations€on€metricized€continuua€„„€motivated€him€to€develop€an€approach€of€his€own.€€TheÐ P#à Ðforeground€task€was€to€infer,€from€subjects'€ratings€on€three€or€more€numerical€scaled€indicators€taken€in€clinicalÐ ¤$4! Ðpractice€to€diagnose€schizophrenia,€whether€the€joint€distribution€of€scores€on€these€indicators€support€theÐ ø%ˆ" Ðhypothesis€that€these€express,€albeit€with€questionable€reliability,€an€underlying€common„source€variable€havingÐ L'Ü# Ðjust€two€levels,€schizotypic€vs.€non„schizotypic;€and€if€so,€to€infer€the€proportion€of€subjects€in€each€taxon€as€wellÐ  (0% Ðas€a€subject's€taxon€probabilities€given€his€indicator€scores.€€From€there,€Meehl's€schizogene€theory€becomesÐ ô)„& Ðtestable€from€schizotype€concordance€among€the€close€relatives€of€schizotypic€probands.Ð H+Ø' ÐÌà Ü àThe€source„structure€presuppositions€on€which€Meehl€grounded€his€original€MAXCOV€procedure€forÐ ð-€*  Ðsuch€taxon€diagnosis€€are€essentially€those€invoked€by€Lazarfeld's€prior€Latent€Structure€Analysis€(LSA),€whichÐ D/Ô+! ÐÑSlJÑâ SâÑXÂÑÑîÑÑ  Ñâ SâÑ  Ñlikewise€solves€for€source€categories€albeit€from€data€that€are€also€categorical€in€contrast€to€Meehl's€metric€dataÐ  Ðdimensions.€€Meehl€could€have€used€LSA€to€test€for€schizotype€taxa€simply€by€treating€score€intervals€on€hisÐ ZT Ðindicators€as€data€categories;€but€possibly€that€loss€of€information€would€have€incurred€solutions€inferior€to€whatÐ ®¨ ÐMAXCOV€obtained.€€Be€that€as€it€may,€Meehl€pursued€MAXCOV€over€many€publications€thereafter,€mostÐ ü Ðrecently€in€Waller€&€Meehl€(1998),€which€expands€its€range€of€applications€while€also€recognizing€its€proximityÐ V P Ðto€other€name„branded€procedures€for€latent„source€recovery.€€Appraising€MAXCOV's€method€prowess€or€pastÐ ª ¤ Ðapplications€payoff€is€not€on€this€essay's€agenda.€€But€I€will€return€to€schizotype€detection€when€consideringÐ þ ø ÐMeehl's€more€recent€views€on€theory€testing€(goodby€Popper,€hello€Lakatos).Ð R L  Ðà Ü àNot€all€tests€of€schizogene€theory€proffered€by€Meehl€employ€MAXCOV.€€A€simpler€one€that€will€later€beÐ ¦   Ðuseful€as€foil€for€voicing€reservations€about€his€most€recent€account€of€theory€testing€was€published€in€Golden€&Ð úô  ÐMeehl€(1978),€with€an€overview€in€Meehl€(1978),€p.820.€€The€most€immediate€problem€for€researchingÐ NH  Ðschizophrenia€under€Meehl's€theory€thereof€is€how€to€identify€people€who€are€schizotypic€(the€near„certainÐ ¢œ  Ðdevelopmental€consequence€of€schizotaxia)€even€in€the€"compensated"€majority€thereof€whose€schizophrenicÐ öð  Ðdispositions€remain€unrealized.€€Several€indicators€of€compensated€schizotaxia€are€known,€but€each€has€imperfectÐ JD  Ðaccuracy€and€it€is€clinically€important€to€estimate€the€true„positive€and€false„negative€conditional€probabilities€forÐ ž˜ Ðthese€diagnostic€instruments.׃7×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Meehl€points€out€how€to€do€so€for€a€given€binary€indicator€òòXóó€of€schizotypia€whenÐ òì Ðwe€have€identified€a€large€group€of€decompensated€schizotypic€individuals€("probands")€whose€immediate€familyÐ F@ Ðand€close€relatives€are€also€available€and€willing€to€be€assessed€for€schizotypia.€€Given€some€help€from€auxiliaryÐ š” Ðdistribution€idealizations,€schizogene€theory€authorizes€derivation,€from€the€marginal€and€joint€frequencies€of€thisÐ îè Ðsymptom€in€these€probands'€parent€pairs,€the€probabilities€òòPróó(òòsóóÔ€&ÿ%%&×Ô|òòÔ€&×%%&ÿÔXóó+)€and€òòPróó(òòsóóÔ€&ÿ%%&×Ô|òòÔ€&×%%&ÿÔXóó„)€that€a€person€who€respectivelyÐ B< Ðdoes€or€does€not€manifest€òòX+óó€is€schizotypic.€€And€from€there€the€idealized€theory€further€deduces€the€incidenceÐ – Ð(relative€frequency)€of€symptom€òòXóó+€in€various€inheritance€classes€of€these€probands'€near€relatives€„„€monozygoticÐ êä Ðvs.€dizygotic€twins,€other€siblings,€grandparents,€etc.€Meehl€viewed€checking€the€accuracy€of€such€outreachÐ >!8 Ðpredictions€following€parameter€estimation€as€"consistency€testing",€a€strand€of€his€metatheory€on€theory€appraisalÐ ’"Œ Ðthat€will€resurface€below.€€Rather€more€can€be€inferred€from€schizogene€theory,€creating€additional€tests€thereof,Ð æ#à Ðwhen€covariances€among€two€or€more€schizotype€indicators€augment€the€analysis;€and€more€yet€when€MAXCOVÐ :%4! Ðis€brought€to€bear€on€joint€distributions€of€graded€schizotypia€indicators.€€But€that's€deeper€into€Meehl's€taxonÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðdetection€than€we€need€to€go€here.€€Ð â'Ü# ÐÐ 6)0% ÐD.€Meehl€on€Null„Hypothesis€Significance€Testing.Ô=C=ÔÐ C= ÐÑ  Ñà Ü àMeehl€was€not€the€first€psychologist€to€decry€our€long„institutionalized€tradition€of€appraising€researchÐ —‘ Ðresults€by€null„hypothesis€tests,€but€by€a€large€margin€he€was€our€most€persistent€scold.€€Probably€best€known€isÐ ëå Ðhis€first€assault€on€this€(Meehl,€1967);€but€his€(1978,€1990òòaóó,€1990òòcóó,€1997)€and€(2004€online)€all€contain€extensiveÐ ?9 Ðcritiques€of€NHST's€idiocies.€€€How€much€corrective€influence,€if€any,€these€had€is€hard€to€discern;€Meehl€himselfÐ “  Ðsensed€little€and€took€personal€affront€from€that.€€(See€Meehl€1990òòcóó,€p.108;€2004€online,€p.5.)€€Even€so,€heÐ ç á Ðenriched€the€debate€over€NHST€with€three€salient€points€that€would€merit€thoughtful€discussion€even€were€ourÐ ; 5 Ðresearch€community's€peer„pressured׃8×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€addiction€to€null„hypothesis€testing€in€full€remission.Ð  ‰  Ðà Ü àThe€first,€which€he€credits€to€Bolles€(1962)€but€surely€appreciated€on€his€own,€is€need€to€distinguish€theÐ ãÝ  Ðstatistical€hypothesis€òòHóó€directly€tested€by€NHST€from€the€substantive€theory€òòTóó€from€which€òòHóó€is€derived€only€withÐ 71  Ðthe€aid€of€implausibly€idealized€presumptions€about€how€a€study's€observational€setup€distributes€probabilitiesÐ ‹…  Ðover€its€possible€outcomes.€€Unlike€Fisher's€NHST„originating€agricultural€research€(cf.€Meehl,€1990òòaóó,€p.226f.)€orÐ ßÙ  Ðmore€generally€in€what€Meehl€(1997,€p.394ff.)€describes€as€"technological"€(vs.€"theoretical")€contexts,€there€hasÐ 3-  Ðbeen€only€a€loose€cognitive€coupling€in€the€behavioral€sciences€between€substantive€theories€and€their€statisticalÐ ‡  Ðshadows€in€dataspace;€and€we€still€have€neither€reasoned€metatheory€nor€reliable€intuitions€about€how€samplingÐ ÛÕ Ðinferences€about€€population€€statistics€should€instruct€our€opinions€about€why€these€have€the€values€they€do.Ð /) Ðà Ü àSecond,€we€have€Meehl€to€thank(?)€for€emphasizing€the€"crud€factor",€a€suitably€honorific€label€he€creditsÐ ƒ} Ðto€Lykken€for€the€pervasive€interconnectedness€of€things€whereby€it€is€virtually€certain€that€any€two€passively€Ð ×Ñ Ðobserved€variables€will€correlate€at€least€modestly.€€Or€as€Meehl€puts€it€as€a€quoted€truism,€'In€the€social€sciencesÐ +% Ðand€arguably€in€the€biological€sciences,€"everything€correlates€to€some€extent€with€everything€else".'€(1990òòaóó,Ð y Ðp.204)€€He€persistently€argued€that€this€correlational€background€noise€results€in€our€journals€becoming€gluttedÐ ÓÍ Ðwith€experimental€tests€of€provocative€theories€sustained€by€their€failing€to€disconfirm€at€low€alpha€levels€evenÐ ' ! Ðwhile€€also€failing€to€show€effects€strong€enough€to€credential€any€as€€winners.Ð {!u Ðà Ü àThird,€and€most€salient€from€Meehl's€ð ðsomewhat€Popperianðð€(1967,€p.112)€perspective€on€theoryÐ Ï"É Ðappraisal,€was€his€distinction€between€"strong€use€of€significance€tests"€(his€wording)€vs.€"weak€use"€thereof.€Ð #$  ÐStrong€testing€requires€a€strong€theory€to€test,€and€Meehl's€paradigm€for€those€are€advanced€physical€theoriesÐ w%q! Ðwhich€imply,€among€€other€theory„specific€features€listed€in€Meehl€(1990òòcóó,€p.114.€fig.1),€precise€or€narrowlyÐ Ë&Å" Ðbounded€values€for€certain€summary€measures€computed€from€data€collected€under€suitably€preparedÐ  Ðexperimental€conditions.€€Bearing€in€mind€that€a€NHST's€"null"€value€can€be€any€value€of€the€test€statistic€onÐ ZT Ðwhich€we€choose€to€center€our€data€report,€we€are€to€view€use€of€NHST€for€testing€a€substantive€hypothesis€òòTóó€asÐ ®¨ Ð"strong"€if€we€infer€from€òòTóó€the€statistical€hypothesis€òòHóó€that€our€test€statistic's€population€value€òòððóó€should€be€null,€orÐ ü Ðis€"weak"€if€our€òòHóó€inferred€from€òòTóó€is€only€that€òòððóó€is€not€null.€€These€are€extremities€of€strong€vs.€weak€use;€moreÐ V P Ðgenerally,€as€illustrated€by€one„tailed€òòHóó„tests,€inferring€òòððóó€to€lie€in€a€restricted€interval€is€intermediately€weak€orÐ ª ¤ Ðstrong€according€to€this€interval's€width€in€comparison€to€òòððóó's€full€range€of€possibilities.€€And€theory€òòTóó's€strengthÐ þ ø Ðregarding€òòððóó€is€graded€according€to€how€narrow€an€interval€òòTóó€authorizes€for€an€òòHóó„test€of€€òòððóó.Ð R L  ÐÑ  Ñà Ü àMeehl€did€not€describe€NHST€testing€of€point€predictions€as€"strong€use"€until€his€1990òòcóó€paper,€by€whichÐ ¦   Ðtime€he€had€become€unenthusiastic€about€all€versions€of€traditional€significance€testing,€even€confidence€intervals,Ð úô  Ðembarking€instead€upon€an€even€stronger€approach€to€theory€testing€to€be€discussed€next.€€But€the€weak„testÐ NH  Ðabsurdity€of€professing€to€support€a€favored€theory€by€inferring€from€it€a€non„null€effect€of€unspecified€strengthÐ ¢œ  Ðwhose€apparent€NHST€success€could€just€as€well€be€manifestation€of€the€background€correlation€noise€was€hisÐ öð  Ðoutset€case€(Meehl,€1967)€against€NHST€albeit€crud€by€that€name€did€not€surface€until€Meehl€(1990òòaóó)€ÔÛÿ³ ³ ÛÿÛÿÔ.€Ð JD  ÐUnfortunately,€his€extensively€referenced€(1967)€exposition€is€much€weaker€than€his€powerful€but€seldom€citedÐ ž˜ Ðputdowns€of€NHST€in€(1990òòa,cóó),€each€of€which€rehashed€the€crud€menace€but€made€its€modest€relevance€moreÐ òì Ðclear€than€did€(1967).)€€It€is€surely€true€that€almost€every€correlation€or€effect€size€in€any€psychonomic€databaseÐ F@ Ðwould€prove€to€differ€ð ðsignificantlyðð€from€zero€in€a€sufficiently€large€subject€sample,€whence€the€official€goal€ofÐ š” Ðtwo„tailed€NHST€is€to€answer€with€some€€statistical€uncertainty€a€question€which€was€never€plausibly€in€doubt.€Ð îè Ð(A€òòpóó„value€exceeding€our€chosen€alpha€signals€in€practice€not€the€absence€of€a€conjectured€effect,€but€only€thatÐ B< Ðour€sample€size€was€too€small€to€detect€it.)€€But€why€should€that€matter?€€Suppose€that€a€major€advance€inÐ – Ðquantum€physics€implies€that€in€your€research€area,€effects€detectable€by€NHST€at€ðð„level€.01€only€in€subjectÐ êä Ðsamples€larger€than€10,000€cannot€exist,€so€that€a€sufficiently€large€sample€can€be€decisive.€€Would€that€weakenÐ >!8 ÐNHSTððs€absurdity€for€psychonomic€research?€€Not€at€all€for€two€reasons,€one€of€which€is€Meehlððs€own€knockoutÐ ’"Œ Ðpunch€and€another€which€he€ignored.Ð æ#à Ðà Ü àThe€point€that€Meehl€never€mentioned€is€that€an€NHSTððs€chosen€significance€level€has€little€relevance€toÐ :%4! Ðwhat€we€really€do€in€response€to€the€data€this€appraises.€€Officially,€Types€1€vs.€2€errors€are€responding€incorrectlyÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðwhen€the€hypothesis€tested€is€respectively€true€or€false.€€But€our€actual€response€is€òòneveróó€unconditional€executionÐ â'Ü# Ðof€a€binary€accept„òòHóó€/reject„òòHóó€action€choice€as€NHST€pretends.€€We€donððt€even€know€what€it€means€to€ð ðacceptððÐ 6)0% Ðor€ð ðrejectðð€a€tested€òòHóó.€€€(If€you€think€it€might€be€deciding€for€sure€whether€òòHóó€is€true,€think€again.€You€can€chooseÐ Š*„& Ðâ âwhether€to€profess€what€you€believe€but€not€whether€to€believe€what€you€profess.)€€What€we€really€get€from€anÐ Þ+Ø' ÐÑU˜3 Ñâ UâÑîÑÑ  Ñâ UâÑ  ÑNHST€report€is€a€sense€of€this€putative€effectððs€strength,€an€update€of€motivation€to€continue€this€line€of€research,Ð  Ðand€maybe€some€leverage€for€soliciting€publication€and€funding.€€Crudððs€prevalence€doesnððt€matter€for€any€of€that.Ð ZT Ðâ âÔ_Ôà Ü àAnd€neither€does€it€much€matter€for€Meehlððs€lethal€point,€which€addresses€use€of€NHST€to€appraiseÐ ®¨ Ðsubstantive€hypotheses.€€He€acknowledges€that€in€applied€research,€whose€primary€concern€is€whetherÐ ü Ðcontrollable€input€to€our€subjects€appreciably€affects€their€resultant€attributes,€the€statistical€question€that€NHSTÐ V P Ðseeks€to€answer€is€pretty€much€our€target€except€that€we€want€to€know€not€just€òòwhetheróó€but€òòhow€strongóó.€Ð ª ¤ Ð(Problems€with€crud€still€arise€here,€but€can€be€largely€suppressed€by€good€experimental€design.)€€But€in€ð ðsoftÐ þ ø Ðpsychologyðð€(Meehlððs€apt€locution),€the€statistics€tested€for€NHST€significance€generally€measureÐ R L  Ðinterdependencies€among€output€variables€and€are€of€interest€not€for€their€own€sake€but€as€extrusions€from€aÐ ¦   Ðtheory€òòTóó€of€the€underlying€states/processes€which€give€rise€to€these€dependent€observables.€€When€òòTóó€impliesÐ úô  Ð(tightly€or€loosely€as€may€be)€a€testable€statistical€hypothesis€òòHóó,€refutation€of€òòHóó€shows€that€either€òòTóó€itself€orÐ NH  Ðinferring€òòHóó€from€it€canððt€be€altogether€correct.€€But€conversely,€verifying€òòHóó€does€little€to€increase€òòTóóððs€plausibilityÐ ¢œ  Ðunless€we€can€largely€rule€out€possible€reasons€for€this€effect€alternative€to€what€òòTóó€posits.€€Chances€are€that€itððs€notÐ öð  Ðhard€to€think€of€other€possibilities.€€But€we€donððt€need€crud€to€discourage€the€leap€from€establishing€òòHóó€toÐ JD  Ðconfidence€in€òòTó󀄄€it€suffices€simply€to€appreciate€that€òòTóó€is€not€the€only€conceivable€source€of€the€òòHóó„effect.€Ð ž˜ ÐIndeed,€one€might€wonder€if€Meehl€wouldnððt€have€made€his€case€against€NHST€more€sharply€concise€if€he€hadnððtÐ òì Ðwanted€an€excuse€to€report€the€plethora€of€crud€connections€he€and€Lykken€had€found€in€the€responses€of€57,000Ð F@ ÐMinnesota€highschool€seniors€to€several€dozen€sociological€questions€(1990òòaóó,€p.205f.).€€Or€maybe€he€assumed,Ð š” Ðperhaps€correctly,€that€few€of€his€readers€would€accept€that€a€ritual€so€entrenched€as€NHST€could€be€shownÐ îè Ðfeckless€by€just€a€few€well„chosen€words.€€And€it€may€also€have€been€his€style€impediment€at€work€.€€For€MeehlÐ B< Ðdid€have€a€style€defect.€€He€always€had€so€much€to€say,€and€so€much€savored€saying€it,€that€more€often€than€not€heÐ – Ðembellished€the€meat€of€his€message€with€needless€authority€references,€fulsome€examples,€and€fringeÐ êä Ðassociations€by€which€most€readers€must€surely€have€been€awed€but€also,€I€venture,€overloaded.€€In€the€presentÐ >!8 Ðinstance,€he€could€have€destroyed€respect€for€NHST€as€an€research€tool€almost€by€just€two€short€passages€hereÐ ’"Œ Ðcondensed€from€three€at€source€„„€"almost",€because€some€exegesis€helps€to€make€their€point€clear:Ð æ#à ÐÒ°„ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓÓTTÓà  à1)€€...€there€is€a€negligible€difference€between€the€substantive€theory€and€the€counter€nullÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðhypothesis€in€agronomy,€whereas€in€theoretical€psychology€they€are€distinctly€different€and€frequentlyÐ â'Ü# Ðseparated€by€what€one€could€call€a€large€"logical€distance";€(1990òòaóó,€p.224)€"...€the€substantive€theory€has€aÐ 6)0% Ðhost€of€alternatives."€(1990òòaóó,€p.229)Ð Š*„& ÐÒe°Òà  à2)€€"One€reason€why€psychologists€in€the€soft€areas€naively€think€that€they€have€strongly€proved€aÐ Þ+Ø' Ðweak€theory€by€a€few€significant€[test€statistics]€is€that€in€their€education€they€learned€to€conflate€òòstatisticalÐ 2-,) Ðsignificanceóó€with€the€broader€concept€of€òòevidentiary€supportóó.€€So€they€are€tempted€to€believe€that€if€there€isÐ †.€*  Ðnothing€wrong€with€the€experimental€design,€or€in€the€choice€of€statistic€used€to€test€significance,€they€areÐ  Ð"safe"€in€concluding€for€the€verisimilitude€of€a€theory.€€Pedagogically,€I€have€found€the€quickest€way€toÐ ZT Ðdispel€that€comforting€illusion€is€to€put€the€question,€'Assume€you€òòhadóó€the€parameter;€what€would€youÐ ®¨ Ðknow,€and€how€confidently?'"€(1990òòcóó,€p.117).€[Only€the€last€sentence€in€this€quote€really€matters;€I€includeÐ ü Ðthe€rest€€to€clarify€that€Meehl's€"comforting€illusion"€is€confusion€of€support€for€òòHóó€with€similarly€strongÐ V P Ðsupport€for€òòTóó.]Ð ª ¤ ÐÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ XÓÓ XÓÓN14Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¡ü!T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XNÓÓªTÓÌÒ„°ÒÒ„eÒÓ XÓÓ XÓÓN1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&4ÜŠX¡ü!‚XNÓÓ  ÓÌÓ XÓÓTªÓTo€backstop€Meehl's€case,€consider€interrogating€as€follows€the€prime€mover€of€an€impending€researchÐ R L  Ðproject€to€appraise€the€still„unknown€value€of€statistical€parameter€òòððóó€under€conditions€òòCóó:€Ð ¦   ÐÒe„ÒÒe„ÒÐ úô  ÐÒ°eÒÒ°eÒa)€€Do€you€want€to€know€òòððóó€for€its€own€sake,€or€only€because€learning€this€is€inferentially€relevantÐ NH  Ðto€something€else€less€directly€observable?€€If€for€its€own€sake,€say€because€knowing€òòððóó€will€advise€youÐ ¢œ  Ðhow€strongly€and/or€reliably€a€controllable€manipulation€brings€about€a€certain€desired€result,€or€tells€howÐ öð  Ðaccurately€some€data€variables€in€your€study€can€be€predicted€from€others,€does€it€suffice€just€to€learn€thatÐ JD Ðòòððóó€does€NOT€have€some€particular€value,€say€zero,€under€conditions€òòCóó?€€(This€might€be€enough€if€you€areÐ ž˜ Ðmerely€doing€a€pilot€study€to€convince€others€that€this€line€of€research€merits€support,€in€which€case€youÐ òì Ðmay€well€not€want€to€learn€too€much€about€òòððóó€too€quickly.)€€Or€wouldn't€you€rather€learn€òòwhatóó€value€òòððóó€hasÐ F@ Ðunder€òòCóó,€or€at€least€roughly€so,€even€if€you€have€no€immediate€need€for€tight€precision.€€If€the€latter,€youÐ š” Ðwant€an€estimate€of€òòððóóÔ ê ê ÔÔ ÷ ÷ Ô's€value€together,€preferably,€with€some€appraisal€of€its€accuracy;€and€in€that€case,Ð îè Ðwhereas€NHST€is€then€worthless€for€you,€a€confidence€interval€derived€from€your€data€by€the€very€sameÐ B< Ðstatistical€logic€as€NHST€and€almost€the€same€computations€tells€you€essentially€all€that€you€can€learnÐ – Ðabout€òòððóó„in„òòCóó€from€these€data€unless€closer€study€of€their€distribution€casts€doubt€on€their€compliance€withÐ êä Ðyour€statistical€modelððs€premises.à h àà À àÓQ4ÜÜS4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XQÓÐ >!8 Ðb)€€If€what€you€learn€about€òòððóó€is€intended€to€inform€us€about€something€else€as€well,€what€is€thatÐ ’"Œ Ðsomething€else,€and€by€what€line€of€reasoning€do€you€go€there?€€In€particular,€if€you€hope€to€adjudicateÐ æ#à Ðsome€favored€theory€òòTóó€that€professes€to€explain,€at€least€in€part,€why€òòðð€óóhas€the€value€it€does€in€òòCóó,€what€areÐ :%4! Ðalternatives€to€òòTóó€that€would€also€explain€this€„„€if€you€don't€know€of€any,€is€that€because€there€are€none€orÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðonly€because€you€haven't€tried€to€think€of€others?€„„€and€what€can€any€experiment€tell€you€about€òòððóó€thatÐ â'Ü# Ðsupports€òòTóó€more€than€its€competitors?€€If€you€have€been€so€preoccupied€with€testing€òòððóó€that€you€haven'tÐ 6)0% Ðconsidered€this€deeper€question,€take€time€òònowóó€to€think€on€what€you€should€do€next€if€you€do€manage€toÐ Š*„& Ðascertain€the€point€value€of€òòððóó€in€òòC,óó€or€nearly€so.€€If€you€haven't€a€clue,€don't€waste€your€time€and€others'Ð Þ+Ø' Ðresources€on€òòððóó„focused€research.Ð 2-,)  ÐÒ„°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÓW4ÜÜS4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&ÜÜS4ŠXù!T$XWÓÓªTÓÐ †.€*! Ðâ âÐ 0/*+" ÐÑW_ Ñâ WâÑ£îÑâ WâÑ  ÑÒ9„ÒÓ  ÓÓK(Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ÜÜS4ŠXù!T$XKÓÓTªÓAnd€where€does€this€leave€crud€prospects?€€Not€as€a€threat€but€an€inducement:€If€we€seek€we€will€surelyÐ  Ðâ âfind.€€€It€assures€us€that€if€we€€become€intrigued€by€a€new€flavor,€facet,€oddity,€or€other€neglected€aspect€ofÐ ZT Ðresearchable€events,€a€sufficiently€large€collection€of€multivariate€observations€thereon€will€exhibit€relationshipsÐ ®¨ Ðthat€NHST€vouchsafes€real€enough€to€encourage€sponsored€continuation€of€your€inquiry.€€€The€€real€problem€is€oneÐ ü Ðthat,€when€I€was€young€and€pets€ran€loose,€was€shared€by€the€neighborhood€dogs€who€loved€to€chase€moving€cars:Ð V P ÐIf€you€catch€one,€do€you€know€what€to€do€with€it?€€€Ð ª ¤ ÐTo€summarize€we€have€a€minor€point€leading€to€a€major€one.€€Important€only€as€a€historical€footnote€is€thatÐ þ ø ÐMeehl's€crud„based€arguments€against€NHST€were€largely€digressive.€€It€should€have€been€obvious,€thoughÐ R L  Ðapparently€was€not,€that€trying€to€learn€a€statistic's€population€value€by€appraising€just€whether€its€sample€value€isÐ ¦   Ðnonzero,€or€only€that€it€differs€in€a€chosen€direction€from€a€chosen€target€value,€is€astonishingly€benighted€whenÐ úô  Ðconfidence€intervals€also€afforded€by€the€standard€statistical€model€grounding€NHST€tell€that€as€a€fragment€of€soÐ NH  Ðmuch€more.€€And€since€psychology's€methodology€establishment€(notably€journal€editors€and€graduate€textÐ ¢œ  Ðauthors)€seemed€unable€to€comprehend€the€naked€logic€of€this€or€admit€to€practicing€òòstatisticus€interruptusóó,€MeehlÐ öð  Ðmay€have€hoped€that€wrapping€this€in€threats€of€crud€contamination€would€promote€better€statistical€hygiene.€€€ButÐ JD  Ðat€end€Meehl€(2004,€p.5)€conceded€failure.€€Even€so,€like€honeybees€to€flowers,€our€research€community€wouldÐ ž˜ Ðsurely€have€swarmed€out€to€harvest€point€estimates€of€its€statistical€parameters€had€only€metatheory€been€in€handÐ òì Ðfor€processing€the€nectar€of€high„quality€statistics€into€the€€honey€of€substantive€explanations€thereof.€€And€that€isÐ F@ Ðthe€major€conclusion€to€take€here;€that€what€our€research€methodology€still€sorely€lacks€and€from€which€NHST€hasÐ š” Ðbeen€a€blighting€distraction,€are€recognized€techniques€for€learning€not€just€òòwhatóó€values€our€data's€statisticalÐ îè Ðparameters€have,€but€òòwhyóó.€€Ð B< ÐÐ – ÐÓ  Óà 9 àE.€€Meehl€on€post„Popperian€hypothesis€testing.Ð êä ÐÓ  ÓThe€philosophers€with€whom€Meehl€interacted€so€extensively€at€the€Minnesota€Center€for€Philosophy€ofÐ >!8 ÐScience€during€his€early€years€had€no€practical€advice€to€offer€on€interpreting€statistical€parameters€either.€Ð ’"Œ ÐAlthough€modern€analytic€philosophy€has€made€sophisticated€advances€on€some€fronts,€nondemonstrativeÐ æ#à Ðinference€is€not€one€of€them.׃9×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Meehl€first€voiced€his€outlook€on€hypothesis€appraisal€during€his€initial€attack€onÐ :%4! ÐNHST:€Ð Ž&ˆ" ÐÓªTÓà é àÌÓ XÓÓ XÓÓE14Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¡ü!T$¬&ÜÜ‹XEÓÓTªÓ...€inadequate€appreciation€of€the€extreme€weakness€of€the€test€to€which€a€substantiveÐ Œ(†$ Ðtheory€òòTóó€is€subjected€by€merely€predicting€a€directional€statistical€difference€òòdóóÔ«ÿ‘‘«ÿ«ÿÔÔ?ÿ)%à)Ú%Ô_ÔÁà)Ú%)%Ô€>€0€is€thenÐ à)Ú% Ðcompounded€by€a€truly€remarkable€failure€to€recognize€the€logical€asymmetry€between,€on€the€oneÐ  Ðhand,€(formally€invalid)€"confirmation"€of€a€theory€via€affirming€the€consequent€in€an€argument€ofÐ ZT Ðform:€[òòT€óóðDðÔ%¹¹%%ÔòòHóóòò1óó,€òòHóóòò1óó,€infer€òòTÔî î Ôóó]€and€on€the€other€hand€the€deductively€tight€òòrefutationóó€of€the€theoryÐ ®¨ Ðòòmodus€tollensóó€by€a€falsified€prediction,€the€logical€form€being:€[òòTóó€ðDð€òòHóóòò1óó,€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô€&×% %&m\ÔòòHóóòò1óó,€infer€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔTóóÔÔ].€Ð ü ÐÒτҀWhile€my€own€philosophical€predilections€are€somewhat€Popperian,€I€daresay€any€readerÐ V P Ðwill€agree€that€no€full„fledged€Popperian€philosophy€of€science€is€presupposed€in€what€I€have€justÐ ª ¤ Ðsaid.€€The€destruction€of€a€theory€òòmodus€tollensóó€is,€after€all,€a€matter€of€deductive€logic;€whereasÐ þ ø Ðthat€the€"confirmation"€of€a€theory€by€its€making€successful€predictions€involves€a€much€weakerÐ R L  Ðkind€of€inference.€€This€much€would€be€conceded€by€even€the€most€anti„Popperian€"inductivistðð.Ð ¦   ÐThe€writing€of€behavior€scientists€often€reads€as€though€they€assumed€„„€what€is€hard€to€believeÐ úô  Ðanyone€would€explicitly€assert€if€challenged€„„€that€successful€and€unsuccessful€predictions€areÐ NH  Ðpractically€on€all€fours€in€arguing€for€and€against€a€substantive€theory.€€(1967,€p.112)Ð ¢œ  Ðà€±!±!s±!àˆÌÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ JD  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓN1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&4ÜŠX¡ü!‚XNÓÓTªÓà é àà ‘ à€Meehl's€argument€here€is€unassailable:€If€theory€òòTóó€entails€statistical€claim€òòHóó,€disproving€òòHóó€also€disprovesÐ ôî ÐòòTóó€whereas€verifying€òòHóó€does€òònotóó,€conversely,€verify€òòTóó.€€But€unless€òòHóó€is€certain€at€outset,€its€verification€mustÐ HB Ðenhance€òòTóó's€credibility€to€some€extent€in€a€coherent€belief€system€„„€just€how€much€or,€antecedent€to€that,€by€whatÐ œ– Ðconceptual€resources€can€we€say€how€much,€remaining€large€epistemic€questions€not€here€addressed.€€That€is€noÐ ðê Ðobjection€to€Meehl's€argument,€just€observing€this€to€be€only€a€small€fragment€of€an€account€of€rationality€barelyÐ D> Ðlaunched.€€It€is€also€to€note€the€first€appearance€of€Meehl's€viewing€confirmation€of€predictions€as€weak€whereasÐ ˜’ Ðrefutation€thereof€is€strong,€albeit€his€double€quotes€around€'confirmation'€acknowledges€Popper's€disapproval€ofÐ ìæ Ðthis€concept.Ð @: Ðà é àà ‘ àA€decade€later,€we€get€a€considerably€more€elaborate€model€of€theory€appraisal,€still€basically€PopperianÐ ” Ž Ðbut€with€more€degrees€of€freedom.€€After€speaking€in€strongly€pejorative€terms€about€psychology's€infatuationÐ è!â Ðwith€refuting€null„hypotheses,€he€launches€his€alternative:€Ð <#6 ÐÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ $Š  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓN14Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¡ü!T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XNÓÓTªÓIt€is€easiest€to€see€this€[null„hypothesis€foolishness]€from€the€methodological€viewpointÐ :%4! Ðof€Sir€Karl€Popper,€but€fortunately€we€have€here€a€rare€instance€in€which€Sir€Karl's€position€yieldsÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðthe€same€result€as€the€Bayesians,€and€both€give€the€same€result€as€"scientific€common€sense"Ð â'Ü# Ðpracticed€by€those€chemists€and€biologists€who€know€nothing€about€philosophy€of€science€orÐ 6)0% ÐBayesian€statistics€and€could€not€care€less€about€either.€€Briefly€and€simplistically,€the€position€ofÐ Š*„& ÐPopper€and€the€neo„Popperians€is€that€we€do€not€"induce"€scientific€theories€by€some€kind€ofÐ Þ+Ø' Ðstraightforward€upward€seepage€from€the€clearly€observed€facts,€nor€do€we€"confirm"€theories€asÐ 2-,)  Ðthe€Vienna€positivists€supposed.€€All€we€can€do€is€to€subject€theories„„including€the€wildest€andÐ †.€*! ÐÑgP¸ Ñâ gâÑ  Ñâ gâÑ  Ñ"unsupported"€armchair€conjectures€(for€a€Popperian,€completely€kosher)€„„€to€grave€danger€ofÐ  Ðrefutation€in€accordance€with€the€formally€valid€fourth€figure€of€the€implicative€syllogism€€òòpóó€ðDð€òòqóó,€Ð ZT ÐÔ€&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô€&×% %&m\Ôòòqóó,ò ò€ðfðó ó€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\Ôpóó,€Popper's€famous€òòmodus€tollensóó.€€A€theory€is€corroborated€to€the€extent€that€we€haveÐ ®¨ Ðsubjected€it€to€such€risky€tests,€the€more€dangerous€tests€it€has€survived€the€better€corroborated€itÐ ü Ðis.€€(Meehl,€1978,€p.817)Ô1‡ V PÔÐ ‡  ÐÐ Û Õ ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓN1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&4ÜŠX¡ü!‚XNÓÓTTÓ'Corroborate'€is€the€verb€Popper€choose€to€mean€"increase€the€credibility€of"€because€he€mistakenly€tookÐ / ) Ð'confirm',€our€most€familiar€word€for€that,€to€connote€the€certainty€of€'verify'€(Popper,€1959,€Ch.X[p.251],€fn.1),Ð ƒ }  Ðand€hence€disallowed€that€conjectures€of€the€sort€considered€"theory"€by€scientists€could€ever€be€confirmed.€ButÐ ×Ñ  Ðstarting€in€(1967,€p.106)€and€for€the€most€part€thereafter,€Meehl€seems€to€have€accepted€'confirm'€and€'corroborate'Ð +%  Ðas€largely€equivalent€for€denoting€what€positive€evidence€does€for€a€theory's€plausibility.€€Even€so,€during€a€hiatusÐ y  Ðcirca€1990€he€took€pains€to€proffer€a€Popperian€definition€of€corroboration€„„€"[the€theory]€has€been€subjected€to€aÐ ÓÍ  Ðtest€and€has€not€failed€it"€(1990òòcóó,€p.110)€„„€that€makes€no€reference€to€credibility.€€(In€€contrast,€Popperððs€1959Ð '!  ÐAppendix€*òòixóó€developed€metricized€formulas€relating€a€corroborationððs€strength€to€the€tested€theoryððs€logicalÐ {u  Ðprobabilities€before/after€the€test).€€Initially€I€took€Meehlððs€failure€to€connect€corroboration€with€rational€beliefÐ ÏÉ Ðchange€here€to€be€an€oddly€inept€omission;€but€after€some€prompted€reconsideration€I€now€discern€method€in€thisÐ # Ðmadness.€€More€on€this€later.Ð wq Ðà é àà ‘ àA€second€Popperian€concept€that€Meehl€first€deployed€in€Meehl€(1978,€p.818ff.)€is€"verisimilitude",Ð ËÅ Ðwhich€in€first€approximation,€while€acknowledging€that€the€concept€still€lacked€satisfactory€explication,€heÐ  Ðprovisionally€clarified€as€"truth„likeness"€or€"nearness€to€the€truth".€€And€professedly€in€reaction€to€critiques€ofÐ sm ÐPopper€by€Lakatos€and€Feyerabend,€though€this€extension€could€surely€not€have€been€new€to€his€thinking,€heÐ ÇÁ Ðexpanded€the€[òòTóó€ÔçÿììçÿçÿÔ€ðDðÔ€&ÿ%%&×Ô€ÔÃÿ¸¸ÃÿÃÿÔòòÔ€&×%%&ÿÔOóó,€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔOóó,Ô%Ý Ý %%Ô€ò òðfðó ó€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔTóóÔŽ Ž Ô]€formula€for€òòmodus€tollensóó€refutation€of€a€theory€òòTóó€by€falsifying€its€observationalÐ   Ðconsequence€òòOóó€to€acknowledge€that€the€theoretic€antecedent€in€a€Popperian€test€is€far€more€logically€complex€thanÐ o!i Ðadequately€schematized€by€a€single€letter:Ð Ã"½ ÐÐ $  ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓN14Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¡ü!T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XNÓ...€when€we€spell€out€in€detail€the€logical€structure€of€what€purports€to€be€an€observationalÐ k%e! Ðtest€of€a€theoretical€conjecture€òòTóó,€we€normally€find€that€we€cannot€get€to€an€observationalÐ ¿&¹" Ðstatement€from€òòTóó€alone.€€We€require€further€a€set€of€often€complex€and€problematic€auxiliaries€òòAóó,Ð ( $ Ðplus€the€empirical€realization€of€certain€conditions€describing€the€experimental€particulars,Ð g)a% Ðcommonly€labeled€collectively€as€òòCóó.€€So€that€the€derivation€of€an€observation€from€a€substantiveÐ »*µ& Ðtheory€òòTóó€amounts€always€to€the€longer€formula€(òòTò òð ðó óAò òð ðó óÔµµÔCóóÔ1``11Ô)€ðDðòò€Oóó,€rather€than€the€simplified€schemaÐ , ( Ð(òòTóóðDðòòOóó)€...€The€modus€tollens€now€reads:€Since€(òòTò òð ðó óAò òð ðó óÔ··ÔCóóÔ1bb11Ô)€ðDðÔ€&ÿ%%&×Ô€òòÔ€&×%%&ÿÔOóó,€and€we€have€falsified€òòOóóÐ c-]) Ðobservationally,€we€have€the€consequence€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô€&×% %&m\Ô(òòTð ðAò òð ðó óÔ½½ÔCóóÔ1hh11Ô).€€Unfortunately,€this€result€does€not€entailÐ ·.±*  Ðthe€falsity€of€òòTóó,€the€substantive€theory€of€interest,€but€only€the€falsity€of€the€conjunction€(òòTò òð ðó óAò òð ðó óÔX X ÔCóóÔ1!!11Ô);Ð  Ðthat€is,€we€have€proved€a€disjunction€of€the€falsities€of€the€conjuncts.€€So€the€failure€to€get€theÐ ZT Ðexpected€observation€òòOóó€proves€that€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔTóóÔ€¿Š%&×Ô€ðVð€Ô€&×%¿ŠÔÔ€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔAóóÔ€¿Š%&×Ô€ðVð€Ô€&×%¿ŠÔÔ€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔCóóÔ%½½%%Ô,€which€is€not€quite€what€we€would€like€to€show.€Ð ®¨ Ð(Meehl,€1978,€p.818)Ð ü ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓÓN1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&4ÜŠX¡ü!‚XNÓà é àà A àÌà é àà ‘ àHow€we€do€show€what€we€would€like€to€show€isn't€addressed€in€Meehl€(1978);€but€that€wasn't€Meehl'sÐ ª ¤ Ðtarget€in€this€paper€and€before€critiquing€his€matured€views€on€theory€appraisal€it's€best€to€finish€inventory€of€hisÐ þ ø Ðspecialist€(neoPopperian)€conceptual€tools.Ð R L  Ðà é àà ‘ àConsiderable€time€elapsed€between€Meehl€1978€and€his€next€foray€into€wide„spectrum€metatheory;€butÐ ¦   Ðwhen€he€returned€in€Meehl€(1990òòa,b,c)óó€€he€had€much€to€say.€€Meehl€(1990òòa)óó€was€a€carpet€bombing€of€pervasiveÐ úô  Ðincompetences€of€design€and€data€interpretation€in€extant€correlational€research€that€could€well€profit€behavioral„Ð NH  Ðscience€graduate€programs€to€adopt€as€their€main€text€for€a€compulsory€methods€seminar.€€But€it€didn't€modifyÐ ¢œ  ÐMeehl's€previous€account€of€theory€appraisal€beyond€a€modest€inflation€of€his€'òòTóóò òð ðòòó óAóóò òð ðó óòòCóó€ò òððó ó€òòOððóó€schema€that€MeehlÐ öð  Ð(1990òòc)óó€expands€further.Ð JD  Ѐ€à é àà ‘ àMeehl's€last€substantial€paper€on€metatheory,€(1990òòc)óó,€was€also€in€a€sense€his€first€insomuch€as€he€hadÐ ž˜ Ðnever€previously€addressed€the€praxis€of€theory€development€much€more€comprehensively€than€urging€us€toÐ òì Ðwaive€null€hypotheses€in€favor€of€theories€yielding€precise€predictions.€€(That€didn't€instruct€us€òòhowóó€to€create€suchÐ F@ Ðtheories€plausible€enough€to€warrant€the€expense€of€testing€but,€counterfactually,€it€should€at€least€have€goadedÐ š” ÐNHST€partisans€to€upgrade€their€research€aspirations.)€€Because€this€finale€opens€so€many€important€issues€withÐ îè Ðpositions€thereon€that€need€dispute,€I€will€quote€Meehl€(1990òòc)óó€extensively€(the€indented€paragraphs€below),€withÐ B< Ðelisions€marked€"..."€and€condensations€or€occasional€clarifying€insertions€by€me€in€square€brackets.€€After€someÐ – Ðintroductory€remarks€he€continues€on€pp.€109„112:Ð êä ÐÓ  ÓÓ ÂÓÓ ,ÓÓW:žÜžÊö N ¦þV®^¶Í ¾#T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XWÓÐ >!8 ÐFor€ease€of€reference,€I€set€out€the€general€position€with€brief€numbered€paragraphs€andÐ ’"Œ Ðminimum€elaboration€or€defense.Ð æ#à ÐÔÿI$C :%4!ÔÐ I$C  ÐÓ îÂÓÓ  Óà S àà  à1.€A€scientific€theory€is€a€set€of€statements€in€general€form€which€are€interconnected€in€theÐ %—! Ðsense€that€they€contain€overlapping€terms€that€designate€the€constructs€of€the€theory.€€In€theÐ ñ&ë" Ðnomological€network€metaphor€(Cronbach€&€Meehl,€1955),€the€nodes€of€the€net€are€the€theoreticalÐ E(?$ Ðconstructs€(entities)€and€the€strands€of€the€net€are€the€functional€or€compositional€laws€relating€themÐ ™)“% Ðto€one€another.€€Contrary€to€simplistic€operationism,€it€is€not€required€that€all€the€theoreticalÐ í*ç& Ðconstructs€be€operationally€defined.€€Only€a€proper€subset€are€linked€in€a€direct€way€toÐ A,;( Ðobservational€predicates€or€statements.€€In€idealization,€the€theory€consists€of€a€formal€calculus€andÐ •-)  Ðan€embedding€text€that€provides€the€interpretation€of€expressions€in€the€formalism€(cf.€Suppe,Ð é.ã*! Ð1977).€€The€empirical€meaning€of€the€theoretical€terms€is€given€partly€by€"upward€seepage"€fromÐ  Ðthe€subset€that€are€operationally€tied€to€the€data€base.€€Logicians€explicate€this€upward€seepage€byÐ ZT Ðmeans€of€a€technical€device€called€the€Ramsey€sentence,€which€eliminates€the€theoretical€termsÐ ®¨ Ðwithout€"eliminating€the€theory"€or€repudiating€its€existence€claims.€€For€psychologists€itsÐ ü Ðimportance€lies€more€in€showing€(contrary€to€simplistic€positivism€and€freshman€rhetoric€class)Ð V P Ðhow€a€system€of€expressions€can€both€òòdefineóó€and€òòassertóó€concurrently.€...€[outside€references€hereÐ ª ¤ Ðfollowed€by€an€interesting€list€of€important€nonobservational€concepts,€notably€ones€with€aÐ þ ø Ðcausality€flavor,€that€often€occur€in€theories€but€seem€to€get€their€meaning€in€obscure€ways€otherÐ R L  Ðthan]€this€"implicit€definition€by€Ramsified€upward€seepage".€Ð ¦   ÐÓ  ÓÓ îÓÓ X,ÓÓf:ö Üž4Êö N ¦þV®^¶¡¾#T$¬&ž Üž‚,N ˆXÍ ¾#T$XfÓÓªTÓÐ úô  ÐÓ îÓÓc:ÊÜž4Êö N ¦þV®^¶¡¾#T$¬&ö Üž‚–ö ‰X¡¾#T$XcÓÓTªÓ2.€In€conducting€an€empirical€test€of€a€substantive€theory€òòTóó€(which€is€imperative€toÐ ¤ž  Ðdistinguish€from€a€test€of€the€statistical€hypothesis€òòHóó)€the€logical€form€is€the€following:€Ôyqkøò ÔÐ qk  ÐÓ ÂXÓÓc:ÊÜž4Êö N ¦þV®^¶7 ¾#T$¬&Ê Üž‚–ö ‰X¡¾#T$XcÓà S àà ' à[f]€€€€€€€€€€à0 « à€€€€€€€€€€€(òòTóó€ò òð ðó ó€Aòòtóó€ò òð ðó ó€òòCóóòòp€ò òóóð ðó ó€òòAóóòòióó€ò òð ðó ó€òòCóóòònóó)ò ò€Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôððó óÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô€(òòOóóòò1óó€ðDð€òòOóóòò2óó)€€Ôy>8Å¿ÔÐ>8 « G"« G" ÐÓ îÓÓc:ÜÜž4Êö N ¦þV®^¶f!ù!T$¬&Ê Üž‚–ö ‰X7 ¾#T$XcÓÒr9ÒÓ ,ÂÓÓ  Óà 4 àà r àwhere€òòTóó€is€the€theory€of€interest,€òòAóóòòtóó€the€conjunction€of€auxiliary€theories€needed€to€make€theÐ ’Œ  Ðderivation€to€observations€go€through,€òòCóóòòpóó€is€a€òòceteris€paribusóó€clause€("other€things€being€equal"),Ð æà ÐòòAóóòòióó€is€an€auxiliary€theory€regarding€instruments,€and€òòCóóòònóó€is€a€statement€about€experimentally€realizedÐ :4 Ðconditions€(particulars).€€The€arrow€denotes€deduction€(entailment),€and€on€the€right€is€a€materialÐ Žˆ Ðconditional€(horseshoe)€which€says€that€if€you€observe€òòOóóòò1óó€you€will€observe€òòOóóòò2óó.€(òòOóóòò1óó€and€òòOóóòò2óó€are€not,Ð âÜ Ðof€course,€related€by€strict€entailment.)€€On€careful€examination€one€always€finds€in€fields€likeÐ 60 Ðpsychology€that€the€auxiliary€òòAóóòòtóó€is€itself€a€conjunction€of€several€auxiliary€theories€òòAóóòò1óó,€...,€òòAóóòòmóó.€€If€inÐ Š„ Ðthe€laboratory,€or€in€our€clinic€files,€or€in€our€field€study,€we€observe€the€conjunction€(òòOóóòò1óóÔ€&m\ %%&×ÔÔÃÿ¥¥ÃÿÃÿÔò òð ðó óÔÃÿ ÃÿÃÿÔ„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔOóóòò2óó)Ð ÞØ Ðwhich€falsifies€the€right„hand€conditional,€the€left„hand€conjunction€is€falsified€òòmodus€tollens.óó׃6×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€......Ð 2 , ÐÓªTÓÐ †!€ ÐÒ9ÏÒà 4 àÓTªÓ€€€3.€[Here,€Meehl€points€out€again€(cf.€1990òòaóó)€that€falsifying€the€observational€consequence€atÐ 0"* Ðright€of€'ðð'€in€theory„test€schema€[f]€entails€falsification€only€of€the€conjunction€of€propositions€to€itsÐ „#~ ÐÑV_RÑâ VâÑ9£Ñâ VâÑ  Ñleft,€telling€us€that€at€least€one€of€those€conjuncts€must€be€false€but€not€identifying€òòwhichóó€of€them€areÐ  Ðwrong.]€Ð ZT ÐÓ  ÓÓ ,ÓÓT.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜž‚–ö ŠXù!T$XTÓÓ­TÓà " àà z àà Ò àà * àà ‚ àà Ú àà 2 àà Š àà â àà : àÌÓ ,ÓÓ  ÓÓK.Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í ÜÜ‚,Œ ‰Xù!KÓÓT­Ó4.€€If€this€falsification€does€not€occur€[that€is,€if€òòOóóòò1óó€does€yield€òòOóóòò2óó],€we€say€that€the€theory€hasÐ [U Ðbeen€òòcorroboratedóó,€which€for€Popper€means€that€it€has€been€subjected€to€a€test€and€has€not€failed€it.Ð ¯© ÐWhatever€affirmative€meaning€(reliance?€€"animal€faith"?€€rational€scientific€belief?)€we€give€toÐ  ý Ðcorroboration€derives€from€a€further€statement,€namely,€that€absent€the€theory€òòTóó,€the€antecedentÐ W Q Ðprobability€of€òòOóóòò2óó€conditional€upon€òòOóóòò1óó€is€"small".€€If€that€is€not€so,€our€corroboration€(pre„PopperiansÐ « ¥ Ðcalled€it€òòconfirmationóó,€a€term€that€Popper€avoids€as€being€justificationist)€is€weak,€some€sayÐ ÿ ù  Ðnegligible.€€...€€When€we€speak€of€the€theory€as€"taking€a€risk,"€as€"surmounting€a€high€hurdle,"€asÐ SM  Ðnot€being€flunked€"despite€a€dangerous€test,"€these€locutions€refer€to€the€notion€that€on€some€basisÐ §¡  Ð(prior€experience,€other€theory,€or€common€knowledge€and€intuition),€òòabsent€the€theory€T€we€haveÐ ûõ  Ðour€eye€onóó,€we€see€no€reason€for€thinking€that€òòOóóòò2óó€has€a€high€probability€conditional€upon€òòOóóòò1óó.Ô1€zOIÔÐ €z  ÐÓTTÓ5.€€The€obvious€way€in€which€we€warrant€a€belief€that€òòOóóòò2óó€has€a€low€prior€probabilityÐ ÔÎ  Ðconditional€upon€òòOóóòò1óó€absent€the€theory€is€when€òòOóóòò2óó€refers€to€a€point€value,€or€narrowly€definedÐ (" Ðnumerical€interval,€selected€from€a€wide€range€of€otherwise€conceivable€values.€...€Ð |v ÐÓ  ÓÓK.4Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÓªTÓÐ ÐÊ ÐÓ  ÓÓTªÓ6.€€By€the€instrumental€auxiliaries€òòAóóòòióó€I€mean€the€accepted€theory€of€devices€of€òòcontrolóó€...€orÐ zt Ðof€òòobservationóó.€€In€some€sciences€(e.g.€nuclear€physics),€it€would€be€quite€difficult€to€parse€theseÐ ÎÈ Ðtheoretical€claims€from€the€theory€being€tested,€but€such€is€not€the€case€in€the€behavioral€sciences.€Ð " Ð[Galvanometers€and€Skinner€boxes€are€cited€as€examples.]€€I€am€using€the€term€['instrument']Ð vp Ðnarrowly€...€to€stipulate€that€the€theory€of€an€instrument€must€not€contain,€explicitly€or€implicitly,€anyÐ ÊÄ Ðpsychological€constructs€or€theories.€...Ð   ÐÓK.4Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í 4Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÓªTÓÐ r!l ÐÓK.Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í 4Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÓTªÓ7.€€In€his€discussion€of€the€positive€and€negative€heuristic,€Lakatos€(1970)€lumped€all€theÐ " Ðconjuncts€on€the€left€except€òòTóó€as€part€of€the€"protective€belt,"€and€maybe€even€portions€of€òòTóó.€€...€Ð p#j ÐLakatos€also€subsumed€both€òòdisturbing€particularsóó€(one€way€to€violate€òòCóóòòpóó)€and€òòincomplete€statementÐ Ä$¾  Ðof€auxiliary€general€lawsóó€(òòAóóòòióó)€into€his€ceteris€paribus€clause.€€I€think€it€is€important€to€distinguishÐ &" Ðthese€[for€reasons€having€to€do€with€theory€revision].Ð l'f# ÐÓK.4Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÓªTÓÐ À(º$ ÐÓTªÓ8.€€In€the€presence€of€what€appears€to€be€a€falsifying€protocol,€the€Lakatosian€methodologyÐ j)d% Ðprescribes€a€strategic€retreat€(a€òòLakatosian€defenseóó,€I€call€it).€€òòWhenóó€adoption€of€this€strategy€isÐ ¾*¸& Ðwarranted,€instead€of€confessing€immediately€that€òòTóó€has€been€falsified€and€should€be€abandoned,Ð , (  Ð[this]€remains€to€be€discussed:€€In€what€follows€immediately€I€consider€the€òòliteral€truth€of€Tóó,€becauseÐ f-`)! Ðwe€can't€discuss€everything€at€once.€€In€reality,€a€sensible€psychologist€would€take€it€for€granted€thatÐ º.´*" ÐòòTóó€itself€is€almost€certainly€imperfect,€either€in€(òòaóó)€the€weak€sense€that€it€is€òòincompleteóó€or€(òòbóó)€theÐ  Ðstrong€sense€that€it€is,€when€taken€literally,€òòfalseóó.€€This€involves€the€problem€of€verisimilitude,€andÐ ZT Ðthe€important€Lakatosian€distinction€between€saying€that€a€theory€is€falsified€and€saying€that€oneÐ ®¨ Ðought€rationally€to€abandon€it.€€In€science,€theories€when€falsified€are€not€abandoned€prior€to€aÐ ü ÐKuhnian€revolution€(Kuhn,€1970),€but€are€appraised€as€to€their€degree€of€verisimilitude,€and€attemptsÐ V P Ðare€made€to€patch€them€up.€€But€in€discussing€the€Lakatosian€strategy€of€retreat,€I€initially€set€asideÐ ª ¤ Ðthe€problem€of€verisimilitude€of€òòTóó€and€reason€as€if€we€wish€to€defend€it€literally€as€it€stands.€€...Ð þ ø ÐÓªTÓÐ R L  ÐÓTªÓ9.€€In€conducting€the€strategic€retreat€in€the€presence€of€accepted€falsifiers€is€it€useful€toÐ ü ö  Ðthink€in€terms€of€a€theory€as€attempting€to€deal€with€several€fact€domains.€...€[That€is,€big€theoriesÐ PJ  Ðhave€implications€in€several€nonoverlapping€"phenomenological"€domains,]€and€a€theory's€ability€toÐ ¤ž  Ðhandle€facts€in€qualitatively€diverse€domains€is€more€impressive€than€its€only€handling€a€largeÐ øò  Ðnumber€of€particulars€belonging€to€the€same€domain.€...€€Suppose€òòTóó€is€doing€very€well€in€severalÐ LF  Ðdomains,€and€it€has€also€succeeded€with€a€few€high„risk€predictions€in€a€subdomain€in€which€also,Ð  š  Ðhowever,€the€conjunction€(òòTÔ  Ôóóò òð ðó óÔççÔAòòtóóÔ££Ôò òð ðó óÔêêÔòòCóóòònóó)€has€been€clearly€falsified.€€Then€an€obvious€strategy€is€to€amendÐ ôî Ðthe€òòdomainóó€òòCóóòònóó.€...Ð HB ÐÓªTÓÐ œ– ÐÓTªÓ10.€€A€related€situation€exists€with€regard€to€the€theoretical€auxiliaries€òòAóóòòtóó€where€one€asksÐ F@ Ðhow€widely€òòAóóòòtóó€is€found€in€the€various€derivation€chains€in€different€domains€before€modifying€it€toÐ š” Ðdeal€with€a€subdomain€falsification.€€A€further€criterion€is€the€extent€to€which€a€certain€auxiliary€has€Ð îè Ðbeen€independently€corroborated€in€other€experiments€not€involving€the€òòTóó€of€current€interest.€...€Ð B< ÐÓ  ÓÓK.4Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í 4Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÓªTÓÐ – ÐÓ  ÓÓTªÓ11.€€This€strategic€retreat„„beginning€with€the€reluctant€admission€of€the€falsifying€protocol,Ð @: Ðthen€cooking€up€new€auxiliaries€by€denial€of€the€ceteris€paribus€clause€in€troublesome€domains,€andÐ ” Ž Ðthen€challenging€some€of€the€former€auxiliaries€themselves„„may€finally€result€in€recognizing€thatÐ è!â Ðthe€program€begins€to€look€somewhat€"degenerate,"€as€Lakatos€called€it.€...€[(Remainder€omitted€hereÐ <#6 Ðspeaks€inconclusively€about€ad„hocery€and€when€to€challenge€the€theory's€hard€core.)]€Ð $Š  ÐÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ ä%Þ! ÐÓ  ÓÓTªÓ12.€€Like€the€concept€of€verisimilitude,€the€metaconcept€of€core€or€central€portions€of€aÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðtheory€has€not€been€given€rigorous€definition,€and€I€am€not€able€to€offer€one.€€It€is€obvious€that€someÐ â'Ü# Ðsuch€distinction€must,€however€loosely,€be€made.€€Intuitively€one€sees€that€in€a€particular€theoryÐ 6)0% Ðsome€components€are€ubiquitous€in€dealing€with€the€range€of€facts€whereas€others€are€not€thusÐ Š*„& Ðcentrally€located,€although€they€are€truly€"part€of€the€theory".€....€[(Elided€is€Meehl's€partialÐ Þ+Ø'  Ðâ âexplicating€what€parts€of€a€theory€qualify€as€its€"core".€€He€considered€that€to€have€some€importanceÐ 2-,)! ÐÑMïhÑâ MâÑî9Ñâ MâÑ  Ñin€appraising€the€theory's€"verisimilitude",€a€concept€he€introduced€next;€but€details€on€core€don'tÐ  Ðmatter€for€what€ensues€here.)]€Ð ZT Ðâ âÒ„rÒÓ  ÓÓ ,ÓÓK.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!4Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ KÓÐ ®¨ ÐÓ  ÓÓH+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‚,Œ ‰Xù!HÓStill€more€Meehlisms€need€inspection€before€I€submit€a€major€disagreement€with€his€metatheory'sÐ ü Ðepistemic€orientation;€but€some€qualms€also€warranted€by€Meehl's€numbered€positions€above€can€best€be€expressedÐ V P Ðnow,€before€additional€complexities€intrude.€€To€begin,€after€initiating€his€Thesis€1€with€a€useful€and€almost€correctÐ ª ¤ Ðreview€of€modern€philosophy's€post„Positivist€understanding€of€theoretical€constructs€in€science€(see€theme€A,Ð þ ø Ðabove),€Meehl€contaminates€this€with€an€atypically€maladroit€introduction€to€Ramsey€sentences.€€I€shaded€"correct"Ð R L  Ðwith€"almost"€here€because,€although€Meehl's€metaphor€of€theoretical€and€observational€concepts€tied€together€asÐ ¦   Ðnodes€in€a€net€of€conjectured€laws€is€apt,€describing€this€process€of€implicit€definition€as€"upward€seepage"€isÐ úô  Ðrather€less€so.€€For€one,€the€connotations€of€ð ðseepageðð(€òòslowóó€and€òòshapelessóó)€traduce€the€brisk€edification€thisÐ NH  Ðexplication€of€concept€development€affords.€€But€it€is€Meehl's€"implicit€definition€by€Ramsified€upward€seepage"Ð ¢œ  Ðphrase,€echoing€the€defect€in€his€description€of€what€a€theory's€Ramsey€sentence€is,€that€demands€correction.€€ForÐ öð  Ðwhat€is€at€issue€here€is€central€to€what€has€been€20th€Century€philosophy's€stormiest€controversy,€namely€theÐ JD  Ðepistemic€character€of€theoretical€concepts.€€Should€you€wish€to€follow€Meehl€in€certain€passages€of€his€mostÐ ž˜ Ðadvanced€metatheorizing€(notably€1990òòbóó€and€2002òòbóó)€you€will€need€to€get€€clear€on€this.€€Nor€should€you€want€toÐ òì Ðshun€it.€€If€the€connotatively€sterile€label€ð ðRamsey€sentenceðð€puts€you€off,€be€apprised€that€òòprime€consequenceóó€(ofÐ F@ Ðthe€theory€from€which€it€derives)€could€be€a€replacement€€name€for€this€that€advertises€its€epistemic€import.Ð š” ÐStrictly€speaking,€no€theory„explicating€Ramsey€sentences€exist€in€real€life,€since€these€are€linguisticÐ îè Ðidealities.€€They€presuppose€theories€expressed€as€a€finite€set€of€fully€explicit€declarative€sentences€in€a€formalizedÐ B< Ðlanguage€(òòaóó)€having€precise€inference€rules€that€capture€what€educated€commonsense€accepts€as€valid€deduction,Ð – Ðand€(òòbóó)€whose€descriptive€terms€(expressions€that€under€a€semantics€for€this€language€profess€to€have€referents)Ð êä Ðhave€been€partitioned€into€two€disjoint€subsets€that€we€can€label€"theoretical"€and€"observational",€respectively.€Ð >!8 Ð(The€Ramsey€construction€is€indifferent€to€how€that€dichotomy€is€imposed,€and€different€applications€are€free€toÐ ’"Œ Ðchoose€whatever€cut€is€most€illuminating€for€the€analysis€at€hand.€€Most€appropriate€to€treat€as€ð ðobservationalððÐ æ#à Ðwhen€considering€alternative€theoretic€explanations€for€a€given€research€finding€would€be€the€leanest€vocabularyÐ :%4! Ðadequate€to€describe€the€empirical€results€plus€an€insuppressible€minimum€of€causal„cohesion€notions€such€asÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðlisted€in€Meehl€(1990òòcóó,€2òòndóó€col.,€lines€19ff.)€€But€don't€let€the€artificiality€of€this€setup€turn€you€away:€Real„Ð â'Ü# Ðlanguage€counterparts€of€Ramsification€have€major€import€for€real„world€theory€adjudications,€and€the€idealizedÐ 6)0% Ðformalization€lets€you€see€clearly€what€might€well€be€obscure€in€a€theory's€ordinary„language€expression.€€€Ð Š*„& ÐÓH1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&ÜÜ‹Xù!HÓÓ<TÓSuppose€then,€suppressing€niceties€of€notation€distinguishing€between€use€and€mention€of€locutions,€thatÐ Þ+Ø' ÐòòPóó(òòaóó)€and€òòQóó€are€arbitrarily€complex€sentences€wherein€the€predicate€òòPóó(_)€ascribed€to€nominal€òòaóó€is€formalized€toÐ -) Ðcontain€no€occurrences€of€òòaóó.€€And€let€(ðyðòòxóó)òòPóó(òòxóó)€be€the€sentence€asserting€that€there€exists€something€that€satisfiesÐ V.P*  ÐÑXnÑâ XâÑwîÑÑ€3 À` Ñâ XâÑ  Ñpredicate€òòPóó(_).€€Letting€'Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôò òó óððÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô'€abbreviate€'logically€entails',€it€is€then€straightforward€to€prove€that€under€standardÐ  Ðprinciples€of€deductive€logic,€if€òòPóó(òòaóó)€Ô€îÓ'î%&×ÔððÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô€òòQóó€when€òòQóó€does€not€contain€òòaóó,€then€also€(ðyðòòxóó)òòPóó(òòxóó)€Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôò òððó óÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô€òòQóó.€€By€iteration€of€thisÐ B< Ðprinciple,€it€follows€that€if€òòTóó(òòSóó)€is€a€more„or„less€complex€theory€that€entails€an€observation„language€prediction€òòOóó,Ð ~x Ðwhile€òòSóó€=€<Ô ÜÜ Ôsòò1óó,..,òòsóóòònóóÔ  Ô>€is€an€òònóó„tuple€comprising€the€nominal€expressions€in€òòTóó(òòSóó)€that€do€not€occur€in€òòOóó,€then€òòOóó€is€alsoÐ º´ Ðentailed€by€(ðyðòòXóó)òòTóó(òòXóó),€where€òòXóó€=€<Ô s s Ôòòxóóòò1óó,...,òòxóóòònóóÔ vv Ô>€is€an€òònóó„tuple€of€logical€variables€of€appropriate€logical€types.€€(ðyðòòXóó)òòTóó(òòXóó)Ð öð Ðasserts€simply€that€there€is€some€òònóó„tuple€of€entities€that€satisfy€òònóó„adic€predicate€òòTóó(_)€without€picking€out€anyÐ 2 , Ðspecific€one€of€these.€€And€when€òòSóó€comprises€all€the€non„observational€terms€in€òòTóó(òòSóó)€(its€"theoretical€constructs"),Ð n h Ð(ðyðòòXóó)òòTóó(òòXóó)€is€theory€òòTóó(òòSóó)'s€Ramsey€sentence.׃:×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Every€observation„language€consequence€of€òòTóó(òòSóó)€can€be€deducedÐ ª ¤ Ðfrom€its€Ramsey€sentence€with€total€disregard€for€the€theoretical€terms€in€òòTóó(òòSóó)€„„€which€points€out€that€these€termsÐ æ à  Ðmost€certainly€do€NOT€get€meaning,€by€seepage€or€otherwise,€from€òòTóó(òòSóó)'s€Ramsification,€else€that€same€meaningÐ "  Ðshould€similarly€be€conferred€on€all€other€tuples€of€hitherto€meaningless€terms€not€in€(ðyðòòXóó)òòTóó(òòXóó).€€Rather,€as€MeehlÐ ^X  Ðcorrectly€observes,€Ramsey€sentences€are€a€way€to€theorize€without€ever€introducing€theoretical€terms.€€What€doesÐ š”  Ðgive€meaning€to€the€òòSóó„terms€is€taking€theory€òòTóó(òòSóó)€to€be€an€"implicit"€definition€of€the€òòsóóòòióó€in€òòSóó€which€tacitly€stipulatesÐ ÖÐ  Ðthat€these€respectively€denote€the€entities€in€whatever€ordered€set€thereof€satisfies€predicate€òòTóó(_)€„„€presuming€ofÐ    Ðcourse,€as€the€theory's€Ramsey€sentence€asserts,€that€such€an€òònóó„tuple€does€in€fact€exist.€€This€linguistic€gambit€isÐ NH Ðaltogether€commonplace€in€everyday€life,€two€recent€examples€of€which€are€"Green€River€killer"€and€"WashingtonÐ Š„ Ðsniper":€€Each€of€these€designates€the€perpetrator€of€a€murder€spree€through€its€implicit€definition€by€an€evolvingÐ ÆÀ Ðpredication€that€initially€described€just€portions€of€its€referential€target's€antisocial€actions€but,€with€increasingÐ ü Ðelaborations€thereof€in€light€of€accumulating€data,€eventually€enabled€apprehension€of€an€individual€satisfying€thatÐ >8 Ðcomplex€predicate.€€Note,€however,€that€the€Washington€sniper€proved€to€be€not€one€person€but€two.€€And€that€is€aÐ zt Ðcomplication€generic€to€the€semantics€of€implicit€definienda€or,€as€Meehl€liked€to€say,€"open"€concepts:€€When€weÐ ¶° Ðsay€that€the€òònóó„tuple€òòSóó€of€theoretical€entities€named€in€a€true€theory€òòTóó(òòSóó)€is€whatever€ordered€set€satisfies€predicateÐ òì ÐòòTóó(_),€we€seldom€have€good€reason€to€posit,€more€strongly€than€what€the€theory's€Ramsey€sentence€asserts,€that€onlyÐ .( Ðone€tuple€of€entities€satisfies€òòTóó(_)€„„€whence€it€would€seem€that€if€the€nominals€in€òòSóó€are€assigned€referents€byÐ j d Ðacceptance€of€theory€òòTóó(òòSóó)€when€òòTóó(_)€has€more€than€one€satisfier,€then€òòSóó€must€equally€refer€to€all€of€those.€€But€howÐ ¦!  Ðcan€that€be€allowed,€when€philosophy€of€language€has€always€presumed€reference€(designation,€aboutness)€to€be€aÐ â"Ü Ðmany„òòoneóó€relation€of€concepts€to€objects?€×ƒ<w×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Making€provision€for€multiple€reference€first€in€semantics€andÐ $  Ðthereafter€epistemology€is€a€major€undertaking€which€modern€philosophy€has€yet€to€shoulder.׃>×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð Z%T! ÐÑc/VÑâ câÑXwÑâ câÑ  ÑÓT<ÓIssues€of€theoretic€reference€are€important,€and€will€resurface€below.€€But€first€come€some€concerns€withÐ  Ðthe€Popperian€vocabulary€that€Meehl€still€favored€for€his€hypothesis„appraisal€metatheory€despite€repeatedlyÐ ZT Ðprofessing€apostasy€from€Popperian€dogma.€€In€overview,€his€thesis€is€that€the€primary€way€to€advance€scientificÐ ®¨ Ðknowledge€„„€for€Popper,€the€only€way€„„€is€to€speculate€profusely€(not€everything€at€once,€but€to€keep€it€coming)Ð ü Ðon€what€might€possibly€account€for€the€observables€in€a€given€field€of€scientific€inquiry,€and€then€winnow€downÐ V P Ðthe€hypothesized€alternatives€to€a€precious€few€by€evaluating€their€success€or€failure€at€falsifiable€predictions.€Ð ª ¤ ÐMeehl€initially€(1978,€1990òòaóó,òòcóó)€called€these€performance€challenges€"risky€tests",€but€later€(Meehl,€1997)Ð þ ø Ðreconceived€them€as€"theory€appraisals"€to€avoid€needless€Popperian€taint€„„€wisely,€since€both€adjective€and€nounÐ R L  Ðin€the€earlier€label€proffered€nits€to€pick.€€But€he€never€wavered€from€Popper's€approved€label€for€what€theoriesÐ ¦   Ðgain€from€verified€predictions,€namely,€"corroboration".€€This€is€one€entry€into€a€convoluted€cluster€of€EnglishÐ úô  Ðlocutions€pertaining€to€belief€and€veridicality€„„€e.g.,€'assurance',€'certainty',€'confidence',€'conjecture',€'contention',Ð NH  Ð'conviction',€'suspicion',€'credence',€'faith',€'truthful',€'plausible',€'doubtful',€'presumptive',€and€many€more€„„€whoseÐ ¢œ  Ðmain€dimensions€comprise€differences€on€one€hand€in€the€strengths/intensities/degrees€with€which€people€in€factÐ öð  Ðbelieve€diverse€propositions,€and€on€the€other€in€the€strengths/intensities/degrees€with€which€they€òòoughtóó€to€do€so€inÐ JD  Ðlight€of€whatever€we€consider€judiciously€relevant€to€that.€€As€a€first„approximation€„„€and€we've€never€gottenÐ ž˜ Ðmuch€beyond€this€„„€we€presume€(òòaóó)€that€people€òòdoóó,€in€fact,€entertain€propositions€at€different€levels€on€a€scalableÐ òì Ðbelief„dimension€of€intentional€modality€(see€Rozeboom,€1972,€p.37ff.);€(òòbóó)€that€it€is€useful€to€idealize€the€contentsÐ F@ Ðof€a€person's€graded€beliefs€as€including€all€propositions€that€can€be€expressed€in€his€language,€each€of€which€atÐ š” Ðany€given€moment€is€believed€„„€either€occurrently€€or€dispositionally€„„€at€some€strength€between€utter€disbeliefÐ îè Ðand€complete€conviction,€and€(òòcóó)€that€a€person's€belief€system€is€ideally€rational€only€if,€when€the€atomicÐ B< Ðpropositions€therein€are€treated€as€a€measurable€set€with€its€connectors€and€quantifiers€appropriately€modeled€asÐ – Ðset„theoretic€relations€(inclusion,€intersection,€union,€etc.),€his€belief„strengths€„„€I€prefer€to€call€these€ððcredencesððÐ êä Ðthough€ðð(personal)€probabilityðð€is€€more€common€in€the€literature€€„„€satisfy€the€axioms€of€probability€theory.€€NoÐ >!8 Ðreal€human€could€ever€be€even€roughly€compliant€with€this€idealized€model;€but€it€is€heuristically€useful€to€pretendÐ ’"Œ Ðthat€we€do,€or€at€least€ought€to,€while€additionally€conforming€for€the€most€part€to€Bayesian€diachronic€coherenceÐ æ#à Ð(cf.€Rozeboom,€1997,€p.340).€€Details€or€development€of€this€ideal€arenððt€needed€here,€especially€since€MeehlððsÐ :%4! Ðown€published€views€on€rational€belief€change,€though€apparently€appreciative€of€its€Bayesian€model,€barelyÐ Ž&ˆ" Ðnibbled€at€its€edges.Ð â'Ü# ÐÓ<TÎDÓThe€exegetical€challenge€engendered€by€Meehl's€persistent€use€of€'corrobor...'€as€the€stem€of€a€transitiveÐ 6)0% Ðverb€relating€theories€to€data€is€to€clarify€what€must€obtain€for€this€relation€to€hold,€starting€with€the€ontology€of€€itsÐ r*l& Ðrelata.€€It€does€seem€reasonably€clear€that€for€Meehl,€when€theory€òòTóó€is€corroborated€by€evidence€òòEóó,€òòTóó€is€a€cluster€ofÐ ®+¨' Ðpropositions€€which€for€simplicity€we€can€treat€as€a€single€conjunction.€€But€is€òòEóó€a€state€of€reality€(e.g.€a€cluster€ofÐ ê,ä( Ðevents€or€some€molar€aspect€thereof),€or€one€or€more€propositions€(or€sentences€which€express€them)€alleging€suchÐ &. *  Ða€reality?€€Meehl€often€speaks€of€data€and€"experimental€findings"€as€corroborators€or€refuters€(plainly,€whateverÐ b/\+! ÐÑ\XÑâ \âÑwXÑÑÂXÑâ \âÑ  Ñcan€corroborate€one€theory€might€refute€another)€but€that€leaves€ambiguous€whether€"data"€and€"findings"€areÐ % Ðexternal„world€states€of€affairs,€someone's€true€beliefs€about€external€reality,€or€an€amalgam€of€a€researcher's€trueÐ a< Ðbeliefs€with€the€objectivities€they€are€about.€€I€don't€know€how€to€resolve€this€question€in€the€abstract,€but€here€is€aÐ x Ðthought„problem€to€bring€its€issues€into€sharp€focus:€€Suppose€theory€òòTóó€entails€that€if€a€certain€experiment€isÐ Ù´ Ðconducted,€a€certain€gauge€will€come€to€register€a€certain€startling€value.€€And€imagine€two€unusual€scenarios€howÐ ð Ðthis€experiment€might€end:Ôm¾ ™Q ,ÔÐ ¾ ™ ÐÒ°„ÒÒ°9Ò(òòaóó)€The€gauge€does€indeed€register€the€startling€value,€but€is€destroyed€by€an€explosion€(whichÐ ú Õ Ðmight€also€have€been€predicted€had€òòTóó's€implications€been€thought€through€more€thoroughly)€beforeÐ 6   Ðanyone€could€observe€its€reading.€Ô1£ ~ r M ÔÐ £ ~  Ð(òòbóó)€The€gauge€doesnððt€show€the€òòTóó„entailed€value,€but€blemishes€on€its€dial€cause€it€to€be€misreadРߺ  Ðas€being€in€the€òòTóó„zone€and€an€untrained€lab€assistant€dismantles€the€setup€before€it€can€be€re„examined.€Ð ö  Ð(A€variant€of€this€scenario€could€be€any€sequence€of€events€that€causes€the€gauge€to€seemingly€or€actuallyÐ W2  Ðreach€the€€òòTóó„zone€by€some€process€that€overrides€the€mechanism€posited€by€òòTóó.)Ð “n  ÐÒ„°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓРϪ  ÐÔ‡ÿ’m æÔÓ  ÓIn€case€(òòaóó),€is€theory€òòTóó€corroborated€by€this€gauge€display€just€prior€to€destruction€„„€by€òòthisóó€event,€mindÐ ’m Ðyou,€not€whether€a€later€repetition€of€the€experiment€does€so€„„€even€though€no€one€knows€it?€€If€corroborators€areРΩ Ðstates€of€affairs€independent€of€whether€anyone€knows€them,€then€this€is€surely€a€corroboration;€yet€I€would€notÐ  å Ðconsider€it€so€and€unless€someone€else€can€make€a€case€to€the€contrary€I€shall€presume€that€neither€would€haveÐ F! ÐMeehl.€€Here's€another€twist:€Suppose€that€this€experiment€yields€a€totally€unanticipated€additional€effect€(e.g.€theÐ ‚] Ðgauge,€whose€time„course€was€recorded€to€measure€response€lag,€oscillated€wildly€for€several€seconds€beforeÐ ¾™ Ðstopping€at€the€òòTóó„entailed€value),€but€after€much€reappraisal€of€theory€òòTóó€it€is€learned€that€this€too€could€have€beenÐ úÕ Ðpredicted€from€òòTóó.€€Is€this€post„hoc€evaluation€at€all€corroboratory?€€I€recall€(though€I€haven't€managed€to€retrieveÐ 6 Ðthe€passage)€that€Meehl€did€indeed€consider€such€postdictions€to€be€positively€probative€„„€he€was€far€too€sensibleÐ rM Ðto€think€otherwise.€€But€if€so,€does€this€additional€corroboration€occur€(òòióó)€when€the€unexpected€phenomenonÐ ®‰ Ðoccurs,€(òòiióó)€when€it€is€recorded,€(òòiiióó)€when€that€record€is€first€perceived€and€judged€puzzling,€or€(òòivóó)€later€when€òòTóóððsÐ ê Å Ðentailment€of€this€phenomenon€€is€discerned?€€I€intuit€(òòivóó)€and€will€venture€this€to€be€consensual.Ð &" ÐÑ  ÑAs€for€scenario€(òòbóó),€whose€analysis€I€must€forego€here,€this€shows€(unless€your€intuitions€conflict€withÐ b#=  Ðmine)€that€prima€facie€corroboration€of€òòTóó€occurs€just€when€someone€detects€that€an€otherwise€uncertain€òòEóó€inferredÐ ž$y! Ðfrom€òòTóó€is€apparently€true,€albeit€violation€of€background€preconditions€can€dismiss€the€apparent€corroboration€asÐ Ú%µ" Ðspurious.€€And€the€conclusion€I€take€from€these€thought€experiments€is€that€corroboration€of€òòTóó€by€òòEóó€is€a€òòprocessóóÐ 'ñ# Ðwherein€some€individualòò€i's€óóbecoming€confident€of€òòE€óóchanges€some€relation€between€òòT€óóand€òòióó.€€When€I€am€òòióó,€thisÐ R(-% ÐòòTóó's€salient€relation€to€me€is€its€location€in€my€space€of€propositional€attitudes;€and€I€insist€that€in€me,€at€least,Ð Ž)i& Ðcorroborative€change€is€a€shift€of€the€corroborated€propositionððs€location€on€the€credence€dimension€thereof.€€ButÐ Ê*¥'  ÐMeehl€seems€never€to€have€made€clear€whether€he€would€have€agreed;€and€while€word€search€for€'corrobor...'€inÐ ,á(! Ðhis€papers€finds€many€passages€that€suggest€it,€close€reading€of€some,€notably€the€ð ðwhatever€affirmative€meaningÐ B-*" Ð...ðð€waffle€in€his€€(1990òòcóó)€position€statement€No.4€quoted€above,€suggests€that€he€wanted€to€view€rational€beliefÐ ~.Y+# Ðchange€as€a€consequence€of€corroboration€rather€than€its€constitution.€€This€freed€him€to€propose€an€innovativeÐ º/•,$ ÐÑ]_[Ñâ ]âÑÂwÑâ ]âÑ  Ñquantitative€measure€of€corroboration€while€evading€the€hassle€of€undertaking€an€account€of€how,€beyondÐ p Ðqualitative€increment,€a€successful€corroboration€should€€rationally€change€oneððs€graded€confidence€in€the€testedÐ ¬< Ðtheory.€€But€it€also€puts€him€at€odds€with€what€I€submit€is€the€sensible€reaction€to€probes€(òòÔ_Ôa,bÔ_Ôóó)€above.€€WhateverÐ èx Ðthe€right€of€this€may€be,€the€issue€is€provocative€and€while€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€can€no€longer€participate,€I€invite€others€to€pickÐ $´ Ðup€for€him.Ð `ð ÐIndeed,€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ôððs€provocation€on€this€may€be€considerably€more€radical€than€so€far€acknowledged€here.€Ð œ , Ð(Ihave€Grove€to€thank€for€holding€my€feet€to€the€fire€on€this.)€€He€may€have€sought€a€notion€of€"corroboration"Ð Ø h Ðthat€breaks€free€not€merely€of€Popper's€conception€but€of€all€traditional€intuitions€about€credence€and€rationalÐ  ¤ Ðbelief€change.€€To€pursue€this€lead€we€need€to€bring€into€play€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€other€new€construct€conjugate€withÐ P à  ÐÔ_ÔreconceivedÔ_Ô€corroboration,€namely,€'verisimilitude',€which€he€first€used€lightly€in€(1967)€without€definition,€laterÐ Œ  Ðclarified€as€"nearness€to€the€truth"€(1978,p.818,€rephrased€as€"truth„likeness"€in€(1990òòcóó,p.112),€and€deployed€as€anÐ ÈX  Ðaspirant€Ô_ÔquantifiableÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmetatheoreticÔ_Ô€measure€in€(1990òòa,b,c)óó.€€I€find€this€word€infelicitous€both€in€its€Ô_ÔsyllablicityÔ_Ô€andÐ ”  Ðits€ordinary„English€sense€of€truth„semblance€distinct€from€truth„proximity;€but€that€doesn't€disqualify€it€for€silentÐ @Ð  Ðreading€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€technical€sense.Ð |   ÐBy€"verisimilitude",€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€wanted€us€to€recognize€that€scientific€theories€are€never€impeccably€veridicalÐ ¸H Ðin€all€respects,€whence€practical€theory€adjudication€needs€to€ask€not€whether€true€but€how€so€and€to€what€degree.€Ð ô„ ÐFully€aware€of€how€impossible€would€be€an€assessment€of€theory€verisimilitude€that€specifies€all€graded€ways€inÐ 0À Ðwhich€a€€theory€might€be€approximately€true€(not€even€the€classic€use/mention€model€of€binary€truth,Ô_Ô׃;×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€whichÐ lü ÐÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€wisely€didn't€try€to€exploit,€survives€close€scrutiny),€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€nevertheless€undertook€ground„breaking€effortsÐ ¨8 Ðin€that€direction.׃@J×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€He€starts€in€(1990òòc)óó€by€observing€that€if€we€have€two€theories€òòTóóòòióó€and€òòÔ_ÔTóóòòjÔ_Ôóó€dealing€with€the€sameÐ ät Ðdomain€and€explicitly€verbalized€in€all€their€cognitively€salient€respects,€€notably€features€such€as€listed€in€(1990òòcóó)Ð  ° ÐFig.1€(repeated€with€mild€revision€in€his€1990òòbóó,€Fig.1),€we€can€quantify€the€similarity€of€these€theories€on€each€ofÐ \ì Ðthese€feature€dimensions€and€thereafter€define€a€composite€of€those€ratings€to€serve€as€a€global€measure€€„„€call€itÐ ˜( ÐÔ_ÔððÔ_ÔÔ_Ô„„Ô_Ô€of€similarity€between€òòTóóòòióó€andòò€Ô_ÔTóóòòjÔ_Ôóó.€€(Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€understandably€avoided€details€of€the€component€measuresÐ Ôd Ðconstituting€this€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô,€though€he€did€offer€ideas€on€where€to€go.)€€Given€this€(conjectured)€formula€for€comparingÐ !  Ðtwo€humanly€fallible€theories,€we€then€invoke€Wilfred€Ô_ÔSellarsÔ_Ô'€conceit€of€Omniscient€Jones,€an€imaginary€supremeÐ L"Ü Ðintellect€who€knows€everything€and€can€verbalize€it,€let€òòTóóòòOÔ OO ÔJóó€€be€Jones'€true€theory€of€òòTóóòòióó€'s€domain€(the€ððÔ€Ems"D%&×ÔOÔ ,!,! ÔJÔ€&×%"DEmsÔððÐ ˆ#  Ðsubscript€is€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's;€he€failed€to€anticipate€what€it€would€connote€in€later€years),€and€take€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô(òòÔ_ÔTóóòòióó,òòTóóòòOÔ_ÔÔ xx ÔJóó)€to€be€ourÐ Ä$T! Ðmeasure€of€òòTóóòòióó's€verisimilitude.€€Obviously€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€wasn't€expecting€any€numeric€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô„ratings€to€be€made€in€our€realÐ &" Ðworld's€near€future;€but€he€quite€rightly€considered€this€to€be€a€bold€conceptual€venture€at€putting€substance€intoÐ <'Ì# Ðâ âthe€otherwise€near„shapeless€notion€of€a€theory's€proximity€to€hard„core€truth.Ð x(% ÐÑ/_Ñâ /âÑ£ÂÑâ /âÑ  ÑYet€if€a€theory€òòTóó's€position€in€a€graded€and€apparently€multidimensional€verisimilitude€space€is€toÐ p Ðâ âsupercede€òòTóó's€binary€truth€status€as€our€target€of€òòTóó„appraisal,€what€happens€to€the€prospect€that€what€we€generallyÐ ¬< Ðget€from€researching€òòTóó€is€a€wobbly€level€of€confirmation,€credibility,€or€probability€of€òòTóó€that€eventuallyÐ èx Ðapproaches€an€extreme?€€Classic€one„dimensional€conceptions€of€epistemic€stature€no€longer€seem€adequate,Ð $´ Ðwhich€may€well€be€why€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€largely€evaded€speaking€so.€€But€are€we€better€off€seeking€corroboration€ofÐ `ð Ðverisimilitude?€€First€of€all,€measure€€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô(òòÔ_ÔTóóòòióó,òòTóóòòOÔ_ÔÔ [[ ÔJóó)€€of€theory€òòTóóòòióóððs€Ô_ÔverisimilarityÔ_Ô€to€òòÔ_ÔTóóòòOÔ_ÔÔ ¨¨ ÔJóó€is€not€just€incomputable€butÐ œ , Ðseriously€ill„conceived:€€If€OÔ Í Í ÔJ€were€really€omniscient,€his€language€would€profoundly€differ€from€ours,€not€merelyÐ Ø h Ðin€reach€but€also€in€precision.€€(Even€if€no€other€issues€of€shared€conceptions€intrude,€how€might€OÔ èè ÔJ€match€theÐ  ¤ Ðvagueness€that€pervades€even€our€most€refined€concepts?)€€Whether€some€subset€of€his€vernacular€could€beÐ P à  Ðcoordinated€closely€enough€with€the€words€wherein€òòTóóòòióó€is€couched€to€make€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô(òòÔ_ÔTóóòòióó,òòTóóòòOÔ_ÔÔ þþ ÔJóó)€well„defined€is€an€intriguingÐ Œ  Ðquestion€which,€however,€is€best€not€made€pivotal€to€real„world€theory€adjudication.€€Actually,€this€obscurityÐ ÈX  Ðarises€much€closer€to€home:€€If€theories€òòTóóòòióó€and€òòÔ_ÔTóóòòjÔ_Ôóó€address€the€same€empirical€domain€but€develop€conflictingÐ ”  Ðaccounts€thereof,€can€the€theoretical€concepts€implicitly€defined€by€òòTóóòòióó€be€matched€with€those€in€òòÔ_ÔTóóòòjÔ_Ôóó€closely€enoughÐ @Ð  Ðto€vouchsafe€the€feature€comparisons€on€which€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€proposes€to€rate€their€similarity?€€I€haven't€studied€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô'sÐ |   ÐFigure„1€features€deeply€enough€to€judge€whether€Ô_ÔintertheoryÔ_Ô€meaning€differences€degrade€comparisons€on€those,Ð ¸H Ðbut€it's€something€for€future€development€of€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€notions€to€ponder.Ð ô„ ÐIn€light€of€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€superseding€Veracity€by€Verisimilitude,€itððs€not€so€surprising€that€he€also€wanted€€toÐ 0À Ðshy€away€from€classical€confirmation€and€its€cognates.€€(We€can't€doubt,€or€consider€plausible,€or€feel€confident€ofÐ lü Ða€theoryððs€verisimilitude€without€some€conception€of€its€alternative€levels,€which€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€schematics€for€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ô(_,€òòTóóòòOÔ ¼#¼# ÔJóó)Ð ¨8 Ðdon't€provide.)€€In€place€thereof,€he€proffered€€in€(1990òòbóó,€p.128f.)€and€(1997,€p.415)€an€index€for€the€corroborationÐ ät Ðafforded€by€testing€òòTóó's€interval€prediction€of€a€one„dimensional€numeric€parameter€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_Ôóó€whose€value€is€subsequentlyÐ  ° Ðestimated€empirically.€€Details€of€this€provisional€formula€for€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€"corroboration€indexðð€òòCóóòòióó€€(whose€subscript€Ð \ì Ðindexes€order€in€a€series€of€òòTóó€tests)€donððt€really€matter€here.€€More€interesting€is€what€constituents€ofÐ ˜( Ðcorroboration€are€(òòaóó)€recognized€or€(òòbóó)€neglected€by€his€òòCóóòòióó€measure:€€Ð Ôd ÐFirst,€òòTóó€is€permitted€to€predict€merely€an€interval€for€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_Ôóó,€though€the€larger€the€proportion€of€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_ÔóóÔ [ [ Ô'sÐ !  Ð"Ô_ÔSpielraumÔ_Ô"€(the€parameter's€range€of€currently€plausible€alternatives׃A×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×)€excluded€by€òòTóóÔ KK Ô's€interval€prediction€of€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_ÔóóÐ L"Ü Ð(virtually€all€if€a€point€prediction),€the€stronger€is€the€test.€€This€exclusion€proportion€is€the€theory's€"intolerance"Ð ˆ#  Ð(òòInóó)€and€was€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€proposed€value€of€òòCóóòòióó€for€this€test€when€the€prediction€interval€does€prove€to€include€theÐ Ä$T! Ðempirical€value€ofòò€Ô_ÔððÔ_Ôóó.€€But€unlike€Popper,€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€also€endorsed€partial€credit€for€near€misses.€€So€he€took€theÐ &" Ð"closeness",€òòclóó,€of€òòTóó's€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_Ôóó€prediction€to€be€1€minus€the€"relative€error"€(shortest€distance€of€observed€òòÔ_ÔððÔ_Ôóó€from€theÐ <'Ì# Ðpredicated€interval€in€proportion€to€Ô_ÔSpielraumÔ_Ô),€and€expanded€òòCóóòòióó's€definition€to€be€intolerance€Ô_ÔmultiplicativelyÔ_ÔÐ x(% Ðattenuated€by€Ô_ÔsuboptimalÔ_Ô€closeness,€that€is,€òòCóóòòióó€=òòdefóó€òòclò òð ðó óInóó.€€Further,€corroboration€so€measured€is€allowed€toÐ ´)D& Ðâ âaggregate€over€iterated€testing€(1990òòcóó,€p.129f.),€enabling€the€theory€to€accumulate€ð ðmoney€in€the€bankðð€if€its€testsÐ ð*€'  Ðare€€successful.€€(Provisionally,€accumulation€sums€the€single„test€òòCóóòòióó€when€the€tests€are€ð ðdifferentðð€experimentsÐ p Ðbut€averages€them€€when€the€tests€are€replications.)€€€Ð ¬< Ðâ âThere€is,€of€course,€much€in€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€nascent€corroboration€theory€to€criticize,€ranging€from€(òòaóó)Ð èx Ðtechnicalities€that€would€be€important€but€straightforward€to€improve€were€òòCóóòòióó€to€be€taken€seriously,€through€(òòbóó)Ð $´ Ðforms€of€testable€prediction€that€aren't€plainly€focused€on€€numeric€data€parameters,€to€Ô_Ô(òòcóó)Ô_Ô€conceptual€inadequaciesÐ `ð Ðthat€might€be€lethal.€€A€nice€instance€of€(òòaóó)€is€that,€unlike€Ô_ÔPopperianÔ_Ô€corroboration€which€Ô_ÔdiscorroboratesÔ_Ô€when€aÐ œ , Ðtheory's€test€prediction€is€falsified,€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€version€doesn't€òòdisóó:€òòCóóòòióó€is€positive€so€long€as€the€test€statistic€is€inÐ Ø h ÐÔ_ÔSpielraumÔ_Ô,€whereas€Ô_ÔSpielraumÔ_Ô's€rationale€urges€that€results€falling€outside€of€that€are€so€bizarre€that€they€mustÐ  ¤ Ðsurely€be€òòceteris„paribusóó€violations€and€thus€don't€count€against€the€tested€theory.€€This€reluctance€of€òòCóóòòióó€toÐ P à  Ðdisapprove€could€easily€be€rectified€by€Ô_ÔrescalingÔ_Ô€proximity„to„prediction€to€have€a€zero€point€at€which€scantÐ Œ  Ðapproval€becomes€scorn.€€But€lacking€some€such€correction,€Ô_ÔMeehlianÔ_Ô€corroboration€never€makes€withdrawalsÐ ÈX  Ðfrom€the€theory's€ever„increasing€"money€in€the€bank".€€To€adopt€Popper's€brand€name€"corroboration"€for€a€viewÐ ”  Ðthat€diverges€so€profoundly€from€Popper's€own,€which€took€refutation€to€be€the€driving€force€of€scientificÐ @Ð  Ðprogress,€is€misleading€advertising.Ð |   ÐA€borderline€example€of€challenge€(òòbóó)€is€predicting€function€forms,€albeit€those€can€usually€beÐ ¸H Ðcharacterized€by€special€prediction„targetable€parameter€values€(notably€zeros)€within€a€broader€specified€functionÐ ô„ Ðclass.€€More€provocative€would€be€to€explore€how€Ô_ÔMeehlianÔ_Ô€corroboration€might€track€the€course€of€someÐ 0À Ðmodest„scope€but€important€real„life€theoretic€success.€€A€tidy€recent€instance€is€whether€peptic€ulcers€might€beÐ lü Ðdue€mainly€to€bacteria.€€When€this€theory€was€first€proposed€by€Marshall€&€Warren€in€the€mid„1980s,€it€wasÐ ¨8 Ðconsidered€by€most€medical€specialists€to€be€crackpot,€yet€research€tests€soon€promoted€it€to€a€triumphant€successÐ ät Ð(cf.€Rogers,€A.€I.,€&€Ô_ÔHoelÔ_Ô,€D.,€1997).€.€€How€might€òòCóói€have€been€computed,€aggregated€over€these€experiments,Ð  ° Ðand€thereafter€utilized€in€epistemic€appraisal€of€this€theory?€€The€critical€data€features€would€have€been€at€least€inÐ \ì Ðpart€(though€entirely??)€metricized€contrasts€between€experimental€and€control€groups;€the€conceptual€challengeÐ ˜( Ðfor€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's€approach,€beyond€whether€measured€group€differences€were€all€that€mattered,€is€how€òòCóóòòióó„valuesÐ Ôd Ðreflecting€the€quantified€group€contrasts€would/should€be€relevant€to€the€impact€that€these€studies€would/shouldÐ !  Ðhave€had€on€medical€opinion.Ð L"Ü ÐAs€for€problem€class€Ô_Ô(òòcóó)Ô_Ô,€it€seems€strange€that€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€wasn't€bothered€by€the€flagrant€Ô_ÔsubjectivitiesÔ_Ô€in€hisÐ ˆ#  ÐòòCóóòòióó€measure,€especially€if€€his€silence€on€how€a€tested€theory's€òòCóóòòióó„success€should€alter€its€credibility€was€motivatedÐ Ä$T! Ðat€least€in€part€by€concern€for€the€"sin€of€Ô_ÔpsychologismÔ_Ô"€(Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€1990òòbóó,€p.32)€.€€Although€theories€may€indeedÐ &" Ðoccasionally€entail€an€interval€for€some€data€parameter€without€favoring€any€tighter€locus€therein,€surelyÐ <'Ì# Ðboundaries€for€interval€predictions€of€appreciable€width€would€usually€be€set€by€someone's€personal€impressionsÐ x(% Ðextrinsic€to€the€tested€theory,€with€the€choice€of€interval€unstable€not€merely€between€researchers€but€within€asÐ ´)D& Ðwell.€€(So€much€for€òòCóó*'s€scientific€objectivity.)€€Just€as€fuzzily€idiosyncratic€would€be€Ô_ÔSpielraumÔ_Ô€settings€narrowerÐ ð*€'  Ðthan€the€tested€parameter's€logical€limits.€€And€does€the€convenience€of€algebraic€Ô_ÔlinearityÔ_Ô€justify€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô'sÐ ,,¼(! Ðâ ârestricting€his€corroboration€formulas€to€that€form?Ð h-ø)" ÐÔ_ÔSubjectivities€aside,€how€to€accumulate€corroboration€over€tests€of€similar€but€nonidentical€theories€is€aÐ p Ðâ âproblem€not€just€for€Meehl's€òòCóó*€but€for€all€metatheories€of€progressive€theory€development.€€Consider€Meehl'sÐ ¬< Ðschema€[f]€above,€simplified€to€Ð èx ÐÔþûûþþÔÔ‡ÿ‚‚‡ÿ‡ÿÔ[f'ò òððó ó]€€€€€òòà Ü àà 4 à€€€€€à0 Œ àà ä àTò ò€óóð ðó ó€òòSóóò ò€Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôððó óÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô€òòEóó€€€à ” à€(€€òòSóó€€=€€òòAóó€òòtóó€ò ò€ð ðó ó€òòCóóòòpóóò ò€ð ðó ó€òòAóóòòióó€ò òð ðó ó€òòCóóòònóó€,€€€òòEóó€€=€€òòIfóó€òòOóóòò1òòóó€then€Oóóòò2óó€€)€Ð$´Œ T$Œ T$ ÐÔýkkýýÔwith€Meehlððs€material€implication€in€òòEóó€replaced€by€a€more€ambiguous€ordinary„language€conditional€to€evade€theÐ `ð Ðproblem€cited€in€footnote€#5.€€What€gets€corroborated€by€ascertaining€the€truth€of€òòEóó€is€total€theory€òòTò òð ðó óS€óócomprisingÐ œ , Ðthe€conjunctive€entirety€to€the€left€of€'Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôò òððó óÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô'€in€[f'ò òððó ó]€.€€(Meehl€makes€this€clear€only€for€refutation,€but€gave€no€reasonÐ Ø h Ðto€think€otherwise€for€successful€tests.)€€Now:€If€testing€òòTò òóóð ðó óòòSóóò òó ó€through€its€prediction€[f'ò òððó ó]€€consists€of€obtaining€a€dataÐ  ¤ Ðcollection€that€either€verifies€or€refutes€complex€proposition€òòEóó,€how€is€it€possible€to€replicate€this€test,€consideringÐ P à  Ðthat€òòEóó€abstracts€from€specific€events€at€loci€(subject€times€and€places)€that€never€recur?€€Meehl€astutely€made€thisÐ Œ  Ðpossible€by€putting€òòOóóòò1óó€to€the€right€of€Ô€îÓ'î%&×Ôò òððó óÔ€&×%îîÓ'Ô€in€[f],€rather€than€on€its€to„be„tested€left€as€would€be€the€wont€of€a€logicianÐ ÈX  Ðor€analytic€philosopher,€thereby€allowing€òòTò òð ðó óSóó€to€include€only€generalities€while€sited€particulars€are€supplied€asÐ ”  Ðtest€preconditions€in€conditional€òòEóó.€€So€empirical€research€can€generally€contrive€for€the€attribute€configurationÐ @Ð  Ðdescribed€by€òòOóóòò1óó€to€be€satisfied€by€different€subject€samples€at€diverse€times€and€places,€thereby€constitutingÐ |   Ðrepeated€tests€of€the€very€same€generalized€theory€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó.€€This€also€clarifies€how€it€is€possible€for€the€same€theoryÐ ¸H Ðto€be€tested€in€different€ways,€namely,€by€change€of€òòOóóòò1óó's€predicate€in€small€and€sometimes€large€details€(e.g.Ð ô„ Ðsample€size)€from€which€a€corresponding€change€in€òòOóóòò2óó's€predicate€yields€a€test€prediction€òòEóó'€that€also€follows€fromÐ 0À ÐòòTò òð ðó óS€óó.€€In€such€cases€it€does€make€sense€to€envision€corroboration€of€òòTò òð ðó óSóó€accumulating€over€a€series€of€tests€even€ifÐ lü ÐMeehl's€proposed€formula€for€this€remains€problematic.€€Ð ¨8 ÐBut€Meehl€also€envisioned€appraising€a€theory€òòTóó€through€its€verifiable€implications€under€a€diversity€ofÐ ät Ðauxiliariesòò€Sóó.€€If€òòCóóòòaóó*€and€òòCóóòòbóó*€are€the€corroborations€currently€accumulated€from€tests€of€òòTò òð ðó óSóóòòaóó€and€òòTò òð ðó óSóóòòbóó,Ð  ° Ðrespectively,€with€òòSóóòòbóó€appreciably€different€from€and€perhaps€incompatible€with€òòSóóòòaóó,€is€òòCóóòòbóó*€the€same€as€it€wouldÐ \ì Ðhave€been€had€no€tests€been€run€on€òòTóó€under€òòSóóòòaóó?€€Or€put€more€starkly,€does€cumulated€corroboration€of€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€underÐ ˜( Ðone€specification€of€òòSóó€inherit€any€support€for€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€from€tests€of€òòTóó€conjoined€with€other€auxiliaries?€€Surely€so;€butÐ Ôd Ðhow€strong€should€this€transfer€be,€or€more€fundamentally,€prior€to€any€quantifications,€by€virtue€of€whatÐ !  Ðepistemic€principles€should€this€cross„corroboration€occur?Ð L"Ü ÐAnd€other€extensions€of€Meehlian€òòCóó*€also€need€probate.€€Suppose€that€we€infer€òòEóó€from€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€andÐ ˆ#  Ðconvincingly€establish€that€òòE€óóis€false€no€matter€how€its€òòif/thenóó€is€interpreted,€but€find€later,€when€reviewing€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó'sÐ Ä$T! Ðimplications,€that€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€in€fact€entails€not€òòEóó€but€an€òòEóó*€with€the€same€antecedent€òòOóóòò1óó€as€òòE€óóbut€a€modified€òòOóóòò2óó€that€didÐ &" Ðin€fact€agree€with€our€experimental€findings.€€Are€we€allowed€to€revise€our€opinion€of€this€experiment's€import€toÐ <'Ì# Ðtake€its€corroboration€of€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€to€be€what€it€would€have€been€had€we€correctly€deduced€òòEóó*€from€òòTò òð ðó óS€óó€in€the€firstÐ x(% Ðplace?€€(If€you€think€not,€let's€hear€some€explanation€why.)€€And€if€you€do€concede€that,€can€you€rationally€denyÐ ´)D& Ðthat€an€established€òòEóó€generally€gives€post„hoc€support€to€theories€discovered€or€specifically€developed€to€entail€òòEÐ ð*€'  Ðâ âóóonly€after€òòEóó€was€learned?Ð ,,¼(! ÐMy€questions€here€are€far€from€rhetorical.€€Nor€do€I€suggest€that€they€have€easy€answers€if€only€we€pauseÐ p Ðto€ponder€them.€€I€do,€however,€urge€that€they€show€Popperian€or€even€Meehlian€corroboration€to€be€massivelyÐ ¬< Ðincomplete€as€an€account€of€the€conditions€under€which€our€nonobservational€beliefs€are€rational.Ð èx Ðâ âOf€course€Meehl€didnððt€expect€us€to€think€that€the€1990€design€sketch€of€his€new€take€on€corroborationÐ $´ Ðfully€specified€a€production€model.€€Maybe€objective€standards€could€be€developed€for€setting€intervalÐ `ð Ðboundaries,€with€formulas€òòCóóòòióó€and€òòCóó*€complexified€as€need€requires.€€But€what€would€be€the€criterion€ofÐ œ , Ðmetatheoretic€success€at€that?€€It€appears,€though€not€made€clear€at€outset,€that€Meehl€wanted€his€cumulatedÐ Ø h Ðcorroboration€to€be€an€objective€measure€of€a€theory's€òòverisimilitudeóó.€€This€was€a€huge€aspiration,€and€MeehlÐ  ¤ Ðdeserves€amazed€respect€not€just€for€its€audacity€of€conception€but€also€for€undertaking€many€difficult€pages€inÐ P à  Ð(1990òòbóó)€to€argue€how€a€theory's€verisimilitude€should€€have€diagnostically€informative€effects€on€òòCóó*.€€But€withoutÐ Œ  Ðsome€explication€of€theoretic€verisimilitude€sturdier€than€a€theoryððs€conceptual€similarity€to€some€of€OmniscientÐ ÈX  ÐJones'€verbalized€knowledge,€Meehl€might€have€done€better€to€develop€his€revisionist€corroboration€in€greaterÐ ”  Ðoperational€detail€before€proffering€it€to€market.€Ð @Ð  ÐHowever,€there€is€a€deeper€objection€to€Meehl's€corroboration€that€would€remain€even€were€verisimilitudeÐ |   Ðpellucid,€namely,€his€apparent€intent€to€decouple€corroboration€from€practical€epistemology.€€Why€should€we€careÐ ¸H Ðhow€strongly€a€theory€òòTóó€has€been€corroborated€or€discorroborated?€€Some€of€us€„„€and€I€suspect€that€includes€you€Ð ô„ Є„€want€to€optimize€how€strongly€we€òòbelieveóó€some€of€the€theories€we€contemplate,€because€that€affects€at€least€aÐ 0À Ðlittle€and€sometimes€greatly€what€we€do,€with€consequences€to€which€we€are€not€indifferent.€€Had€Meehl€learnedÐ lü Ðthat€his€state's€Mayo€Clinic€had€chosen€his€òòCóó*€for€summarizing€results€from€a€series€of€clinical€trials€appraisingÐ ¨8 Ðthe€hypothesized€effectiveness€of€newly€conceived€medical€treatments,€wouldn't€he€have€felt€an€obligation€toÐ ät Ðcoach€these€researchers€on€how€their€obtained€òòCóó*€ratings€should€be€allowed€to€influence€adoption€of€theseÐ  ° Ðprocedures?€€Corroboration€without€consequences€for€belief€is€as€sterile€as€phone€sex.€Ð \ì ÐActually,€either€Meehlððs€(1990)€apparent€sundering€of€corroboration€from€confirmation€was€unintended€orÐ ˜( Ðhe€later€readjusted€his€position€on€this.€€For€in€(1997)€he€again€treated€ððconfirmationðð,€ððprobabilityðð,€andÐ Ôd Ðððcorroborationðð€as€largely€equivalent€at€least€in€their€qualitative€concern€even€if€not€in€technical€detail.€€Cf.€òòinterÐ !  Ðaliaóó€ð ð...€a€question€concerning€the€probability,€confidence,€confirmation,€or€corroboration€of€òòHóó€...ðð€(€p.407),€andÐ L"Ü Ðð ð...€better€to€have€an€index€that€appraises€theory€performance€(corroboration,€confirmation,€degree€of€support)Ð ˆ#  Ðthan€...ðð(€p.417),€€Most€telling€is€his€p.415€reference€to€ð ðmy€confirmation€index€òòCóóòòióóðð€which€earlier€he€had€soÐ Ä$T! Ðstrongly€insisted€was€Corroboration.€€It€remains€somewhat€ambiguous€whether€he€refers€by€these€locutions€to€test„Ð &" Ðinduced€changes€in€a€theoryððs€support€,€or€to€resultant€(accumulated)€levels€thereof€as€these€quotations€prior€to€theÐ <'Ì# Ðlast€seem€to€favor.€€But€that€can€be€left€for€context€to€resolve;€the€salient€point€here€is€that€we€can€now€address€aÐ x(% Ðrather€important€issue€of€confirmation€òòasóó€an€issue€of€confirmation,€for€Meehl€along€the€rest€of€us,€without€need€toÐ ´)D& Ðdouble„track€that€in€separate€terms€for€a€Meehlian€(òòcontraóó€Popperian)€ð ðcorroborationðð€whose€nature€is€hinted€atÐ ð*€'  Ðbut€not€tenably€defined€by€Meehlððs€formulas€for€òòCóóòòióó€and€òòCóó*.Ô‘½,M),,¼(ÔÐ ½,M)! ÐÐ ù-‰*" ÐÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓ3ÜÜDœôL¤ÜÜ‹Xù!T$X3ÓÑ€QïhÑàQÍÍ>ìàDisagreementsÓK1ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!T$¬&ÜÜDœƒXKÓÔaÑapԈРÑa ÐÓ  ÓÓH+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‹Xù!T$XHÓSome€mild€demurrers€aside,€this€review€of€Meehlian€metatheory€has€so€far€been€commendational.€€ButÐ   Ðthere€are€large€gaps€in€Meehl's€evolving€outlook,€comparable€to€drafting€the€body€sculpture€and€interiorÐ IÙ Ðaccouterments€for€an€advanced€automotive€design€while€neglecting€to€allocate€space€for€motor€and€fuel.€€TheÐ … Ðesthetic€features€needn't€be€incompatible€with€the€overlooked€power€components,€but€until€those€are€also€workedÐ ÁQ Ðinto€production€schematics€the€company's€body€shop€had€better€hold€back€on€cutting€and€casting.Ð ý  ÐÓ  Óà 4 àà Œ àÌà 4 àMeehl's€major€metheoretic€omissions,€the€residue€of€Popperian€thinking,€are€twofold:€Ð u   ÐÑ  Ñà 4 àà Œ àa)€€his€corroboration€(crypto„confirmation)€is€indiscriminately€holistic,€andÐ ± A  Ðà 4 àà Œ àb)€€he€seemingly€ignores€scientific€discovery.ÔaNÞ í} ÔÐ NÞ  ÐÑ  ÑÓ  ÓLet's€start€with€ð ðdiscoveryðð,€mainly€as€commonsense€understands€this€but€also€as€a€theme€in€theÐ Š  Ðphilosophy€of€rational€belief€(cf.€Reichenbachððs€famous€contexts€of€discovery€vs.€justification).€€Both€Popper€andÐ ÆV  ÐMeehl€of€course€appreciated€that€in€order€to€test€hypotheses€one€must€first€obtain€hypotheses€to€test.€€But€neither,Ð ’  Ðso€far€as€I€can€find,€published€anything€probative€about€the€outset€epistemic€status€of€those.׃?×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Yet€if€noÐ >Î  Ðconjectures€can€warrant€appreciable€credence€prior€to€testing,€then€neither€should€our€fallible€beliefs€in€testÐ z  Ðoutcomes€be€warranted€until€those€in€turn€are€tested,€and€so€on€into€vicious€regress.׃= ×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€So€a€comprehensive€accountÐ ¶F Ðof€warranted€belief€must€include€some€views€on€the€epistemic€management€of€opinions€acquired€or€modified€inÐ ò‚ Ðways€other€than€hypothesis€tests.€€And€indeed,€one€variety€of€acquiring€hypotheses€by€discovery€has€long€beenÐ .¾ Ðboth€a€mainstay€paradigm€of€learning€from€experience€and€a€classic€philosophic€conundrum€of€justification€toÐ jú Ðwhich€Meehl€repeatedly€alludes€as€ð ðHumeððs€problemðð,€namely€statistical€induction.€€This€reasons€that€whenÐ ¦6 Ðalmost€all€the€òòNóó€things€of€kind€òòKóó€observed€so€far€have€had€property€òòPóó,€it's€quite€likely,€if€òòNóó€is€large,€that€almost€allÐ âr Ðkind„òòKóó€things,€or€at€least€all€that€we€encounter€subsequently,€will€also€have€òòPóó.€€And€although€the€weight€ofÐ ® Ðevidence€accumulating€when€òòKóós€are€encountered€singly€in€sequence€could€be€viewed€as€concatenatedÐ Zê Ðcorroboration€from€implicit€repetitious€testing€of€"Most€òòKóós€have€òòPóó"€even€when€this€generalization€doesn'tÐ – & Ðconsciously€occur€to€us€until€òòNóó€is€quite€large,€we€would€surely€attain€much€the€same€confidence€in€this€Ô_ÔsameÐ Ò!b Ðinductive€conclusion€from€initially€finding€a€large€flock€of€òòÔ_ÔKóósÔ_Ô€wherein€the€strong€prevalence€of€òòPóó„ness€elicits€ourÐ p Ðfirst€opinion€on€òòPóó's€incidence€among€òòÔ_ÔKóósÔ_Ô.€€(For€a€deeper€thought„experiment€on€Ô_ÔinductivistÔ_Ô€vs.€hypothesis„testingÐ ¬< Ðoutlooks€on€inferring€generalities€from€sample€data,€see€footnote€#16.)€€The€Ô_ÔmetatheoreticÔ_Ô€point€to€be€taken€here€isÐ èx Ðthat€garden„variety€statistical€induction€is€òònotóó€a€specialized€form€of€hypothesis€testing.€€Rather,€the€generalities€itÐ $´ Ðyields€are€driven€from€the€outset€by€data€that€shape€their€propositional€contents€even€while€conferring€plausibilityÐ `ð Ðupon€them.€€It€is,€in€short,€a€primitive€version€of€òòdiscoveringóó€generalities€that€seem€lawful.€€But€from€the€longÐ œ , Ðhistory€of€philosophers'€failing€to€justify€this€pattern€of€inference€(Ô_ÔnevermindÔ_Ô€that€this€failure€could€alternativelyÐ Ø h Ðbe€taken€to€discredit€their€standards€of€"justification"),€Popper€concluded€as€preface€to€his€hypothesis„testingÐ  ¤ Ðmodel€of€progressive€science€that€a€rational€"inductive€logic"€does€not€exist.€€One€might€counter€that€takingÐ P à  Ðstatistical€induction's€rationality€to€be€impugned€just€by€the€inability€of€philosophers€to€justify€it€would€be€not€justÐ Œ  ÐÔ_ÔcommonsensicallyÔ_Ô€absurd,€but€lethal€if€taken€seriously.€€But€that€is€too€simplistic€a€rejoinder:€€The€philosophicÐ ÈX  Ðissue€has€been€not€whether€we€should€continue€this€inferential€practice€but€whether€meta„reasons€can€beÐ ”  Ðdeveloped€for€doing€so.€€€Yet€it€is€meta„irrational€to€insist€that€no€proffered€Ô_ÔexplanansÔ_Ô׃B×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€should€satisfy€us€unless€itÐ @Ð  Ðtoo€has€been€explained,€albeit€neither€should€we€foreclose€the€possibility€of€deeper€explanation.׃DË×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€his€publishedÐ |   Ðwork,€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€stayed€well€clear€of€inductionððs€Ô_ÔjustificationalÔ_Ô€quicksand,€but€in€(1990òòbóó),€unpublished,€€he€repeatedlyÐ ¸H Ðstepped€to€its€edge€and€refused€to€be€sucked€in.Ð ô„ ÐWhatever€its€justification,€classic€statistical€induction€is€just€the€simplest€form€of€our€inferringÐ 0À ÐÔ_ÔgeneralizableÔ_Ô€explanations€of€observed€events€from€our€discovery€of€structure€in€data€collections.€€Peirce's€labelÐ lü Ð'abduction'€for€inferences€of€this€sort€has€finally€begun€to€achieve€some€popularity,€though€promiscuous€usage€isÐ ¨8 Ðimpairing€its€value€for€Ô_ÔmetatheoreticÔ_Ô€discourse.€€Closer€to€home,€I€have€for€quite€some€time€repeatedly€argued€thatÐ ät Ðinferences€from€newly€observed€data€patterns€to€lawful€explanations€created€for€them,€which€I€originally€calledÐ  ° Ð'ontological€induction'€but€have€since€Ô_ÔrelabeledÔ_Ô€'explanatory€induction',€are€prevalent€both€in€technical€science€andÐ \ì Ðeveryday€life.€€I€will€not€here€develop€this€thesis€yet€again;€should€you€care,€you€can€find€a€decently€nontechnicalÐ ˜( Ðexposition€with€additional€references€in€Ô_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô€(1997),€pp.€366„384.€€These€afford€only€the€opening€chaptersÐ Ôd Ðon€explanatory€inductions€(Ô_ÔEIÔ_Ô€for€short),€whose€different€forms€taken€in€different€situations€are€surely€moreÐ !  Ðvariegated€than€the€ones€I€have€explicitly€identified.€€And€although€it€would€please€me€if€Ô_ÔEIÔ_Ô€could€entirely€replaceÐ L"Ü Ðhypothesis€testing€in€our€Ô_ÔmetatheoreticÔ_Ô€recipes€for€scientific€theory€development,€I€have€little€doubt€that€inÐ ˆ#  Ðepistemic€practice€there€will€always€be€theoretical€terrain€that€Ô_ÔEIÔ_Ô€cannot€invade€until€astute€leaps€of€imaginationÐ Ä$T! Ðbring€back€scouting€reports€authenticated€by€hypothesis€tests€òòa€la€Ô_ÔóóMeehlÔ_Ô.€€Even€so,€if€only€my€voice€could€carryÐ &" Ðlike€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô's,€I€would€insist€that€Ô_ÔEIÔ_Ô€be€given€equal€billing€with€hypothesis€testing€in€our€graduate€methodologyÐ <'Ì# Ðeducation.€€I€regret€that€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€didn't€pick€up€on€this€issue€when€we€could€have€had€some€instructive€debate€on€it.Ð x(% ÐÑQïhÑâ QâÑî£Ñâ QâÑ  ÑÔ_ÔActually,€Meehl€was€involved€in€discovery„oriented€theory€development€throughout€his€career,€startingÐ p Ðwith€his€research€on€the€MMPI€and€acknowledged€in€his€latter„day€side€remark,€'I€believe€strongly€inÐ ¬< Ð"exploratory"€and€"refined€folk„observational"€knowledge'€(1990òòcóó),€p.173.€€In€Meehl€(1978),€he€gave€someÐ èx Ðspecifics€of€parameter€estimation€in€his€own€research€practice,€which€he€also€cited€more€generically€in€his€explicitÐ $´ Ðmetatheoretic€framework€for€theory€development€diagramed€in€his€(1990òòcóó,€p.116)€Figure€2.€€The€basic€point€toÐ `ð Ðtake€on€this€is€that€EI€comprises€òòmeansóó€of€theory€development,€not€alternatives€to€it.€€Parameter€estimation€is€notÐ œ , Ðan€immediately€evident€instance,€but€neither€is€it€plain€how€that€fits€into€the€hypothetico„deductive€model€ofÐ Ø h Ðtheory€adjudication.€€Indeed:Ð  ¤ ÐÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÓª<ÓÐ P à  ÐÓ  ÓÒ°„ÒÓTªÓHow€can€hypotheses€be€tested€by€predictions€that€derive€from€or€explicitly€incorporate€the€valuesÐ ú Š  Ðof€parameters€that€are€open€(that€is,€unspecified)€in€the€hypothesis€tested?Ð NÞ  ÐÓªTÓÐ ¢2  ÐÓTªÓIf€a€hypothesis€òòHóó€needs€specified€parameters€to€entail€a€crucial€testable€prediction€when€òòHóó€itselfÐ LÜ  Ðdoes€not€fix€those,€how€do€we€get€the€parameter€values€to€test?Ð  0  ÐÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ ô„ ÐÒ„°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‹Xù!BÓÓTªÓAlthough€Meehl€did€not€address€these€questions€explicitly,€his€implicit€answer€to€the€first€was€includingÐ ž. Ðfunction€forms€in€his€list€of€things€a€theory€might€predict€(1990òòbóó,€p.130).€€Inferring€just€the€form€of€a€functionÐ ò‚ Ðrelating€specified€variables,€or€more€generally€a€pattern€over€an€ensemble€of€dataset€properties€(notably€in€modernÐ FÖ Ðmultivariate€analysis,€an€array€of€covariances€or€other€joint„distribution€moments)€is€a€prediction€that€existentiallyÐ š* Ðquantifies€over€the€ranges€of€open€parameters€in€that€pattern's€description;€and€in€principal€(though€never€exactlyÐ î~ Ðin€noisy€practice)€the€test€data€will€identify€those€parameters€if€that€prediction€is€true,€or€disprove€it€otherwise.€Ð BÒ ÐAnd€in€answer€to€the€second€question,€the€fitted€parameter€values€can€then€be€used€to€strengthen€the€prior€theoryÐ –& Ðby€specifying€€smaller€windows€of€uncertainty€for€those.€€Note,€however,€that€each€tightening€„„€in€MeehlððsÐ êz Ðcorroboration€formula,€decreasing€the€width€and€perhaps€placement€of€the€interval€within€which€a€numericÐ >Î Ðprediction€receives€full€òòCóó„credit€„„€is€a€discovery„induced€change€in€the€theory€tested,€not€continued€testing€of€theÐ ’ " Ðone€corroborated€previously.€€€This€procedure€is€not€an€unrealized€ideal,€but€is€true€of€real„life€€pattern€fits€which,Ð æ!v Ðwhen€overdetermined€as€required€to€earn€respect,€are€never€exact€but€only€trends€within€a€scatter€of€approximationÐ :#Ê Ðerrors,€uniquely€defined€only€relative€to€a€more„or„less€arbitrary€fit€measure.€€And€the€salient€point€to€take€fromÐ Ž$! Ðthis€is€that€these€parameter€estimates€are€not€Popperian€free„style€speculations€but€directed€discoveries.׃C×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú16Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€ThatÐ â%r" Ðprior€interest€in€certain€theoretic€possibilities€may€have€motivated€search€for€those€no€more€disqualifies€their€claimÐ p Ðto€discovery€status€than€a€mineralogical€prospector's€find€of€a€valuable€ore€deposit€doesn't€really€count€asÐ ÄT Ð"discovery"€because€he€was€looking€for€something€like€that.€€In€both€cases€the€searcher€could€have€stumbled€onÐ ¨ Ðthis€find€without€a€search€plan€(arguably€this€is€how€most€commonsense€dispositional€attributes€becomeÐ lü Ðconjectured).€€And€also€in€both€cases,€although€the€prospector€may€well€be€in€an€uncommon€situation€(controlledÐ ÀP Ðdata„harvest€or€geographic€traverse,€respectively)€deliberately€contrived€to€promote€possible€manifestation€ofÐ  ¤ Ðsomething€that€only€a€specialist€in€this€matter€could€recognize€or€even€conceive,€what€he€finds€can€differ€so€muchÐ h ø Ðfrom€what€he€was€seeking€that€he€abandons€the€quest€that€brought€him€there€to€explore€the€unexpected€discoveryÐ ¼ L  Ðinstead.€€Thus€when€harvested€data€show€not€the€pattern€anticipated€but€conspicuous€manifestation€of€somethingÐ    Ðquite€different,€EI€may€well€proffer€a€skeletal€explanation€for€that€which,€in€its€prospect€for€confirmation€andÐ dô  Ðelaboration€by€ensuing€research,€does€more€to€advance€our€comprehension€of€the€phenomenon€at€issue€than€wouldÐ ¸H  Ðan€estimate€of€parameters€in€the€outset€model.€Ð  œ  ÐAlso€deflecting€my€scowl€at€Meehl's€metatheoretic€neglect€of€scientific€discovery€is€his€repeatedÐ `ð  Ðcommendation€of€"convergent€lines€of€evidence"€(e.g.€1990òòcóó,€p.118)€and€Salmonish€"damned€strangeÐ ´D  Ðcoincidence".€€Discovering€that€certain€pattern€features€of€data€collectable€in€a€controlled€observational€settingÐ ˜ Ð(the€sorts€of€abstracta€that€"parameters"€characterize)€systematically€recur€(approximately)€over€multiple€sectorsÐ \ì Ðor€aspects€of€the€data€structure€is€typical€of€the€adventitious€input€to€which€EI€is€responsive;€and€further€discoveryÐ p Ðof€interdependencies€among€which€features€recur€under€what€conditions€puts€EI€into€powerdrive.€€(Were€I€to€fleshÐ ÄT Ðout€this€grandly€schematic€claim€with€some€examples,€I€would€start€by€pointing€out€features€common€to€all€pairsÐ ¨ Ðof€points€in€a€bivariate€numeric€distribution€wherein€linear€regression€has€zero€residual€scatter,€and€move€on€toÐ lü Ðpatterning€that€can€be€found€in€the€observations€afforded€to€students€in€an€introductory€chemistry€lab.)€€It€wasÐ ÀP Ðonly€Meehl's€metatheory,€not€his€scientific€practice,€that€neglected€discovery.Ð  ¤ ÐEven€so,€it€was€a€serious€deficiency€for€Meehl€to€have€omitted€any€articulate€endorsement€of€discoveryÐ h ø Ðfrom€his€didactic€on€scienceððs€epistemic€endeavors.€€Possibly€he€felt€that€this€was€so€thoroughly€embedded€inÐ ¼ L  Ðscientific€practice€that€it€didnððt€need€any€metatheoretic€defense.€€Unhappily,€that€is€not€so:€In€at€least€some€sectorsÐ    Ðof€behavioral€science€today€(just€how€pervasively€I€am€not€qualified€to€say),€the€simplistic€Popperian€model€ofÐ dô  Ðtheory€development€sets€the€standards€for€publication€acceptability€and€studentsðð€research„methods€education.€Ð ¸H  ÐThis€is€especially€true€of€structural€equations€modeling€(SEM),€which€is€the€approach€to€analysis€of€multivariateÐ  œ  Ðcovariance€data€that€has€largely€superceded€its€exploratory€factor€analysis€(EFA)€precursor.€€From€what€I€discernÐ `ð  Ðfrom€monitoring€the€SEMNET€listserver€traffic,€the€following€admonitions€to€SEM€neophytes€are€only€mildÐ ´D  Ðparody€of€attitudes€that€currently€prevail€among€its€dedicated€partisans:Ð ˜ ÐÒ°„ÒÒ°„ÒÓ  ÓÐ \ì ÐÓ  Ó1.€€Since€SEM's€state€of€the€art€affords€no€advice€or€traditions€for€creating€hypotheses€whoseÐ °@ Ðconfirmation€would€enhance€our€understanding€of€the€events€modeled,€feel€free€to€let€the€SEM€algebraÐ ” Ðand€solution€procedures€most€familiar€to€you€guide€and€constrain€your€creation€of€causal„path€hypothesesÐ Xè Ðto€test.Ð ¬< Ð2.€€Feel€no€obligation€to€generate€or€search€out€data€for€analysis€that€overdetermine€your€model'sÐ  Ðsolution€beyond€the€bare€minimum€required€for€a€unique€solution.€€In€particular,€to€avoid€needless€risk€ofÐ Tä Ðmodel€misfit,€include€at€most€three€indicators€for€any€latent€variable€you€hypothesize.Ð ¨ 8 ÐÑ  Ñ3.€€Your€modeling€results€are€not€worth€publication€unless€your€goodness€of€model€fit€passes€aÐ ü!Œ Ðstatistical€hypothesis€test€at€an€orthodox€alpha€level.€€€And€if€your€solution€fails€this€test,€you€must€notÐ P#à Ðsubmit€a€fit€to€these€data€made€acceptable€by€revising€your€model€constraints.€€No€post„hoc€model€fit,€noÐ ¤$4! Ðmatter€how€tight,€gives€any€probative€support€to€a€hypothesis€educed€from€the€errors€in€the€data'sÐ ø%ˆ" Ðreproduction€by€a€less€successful€model.Ð L'Ü# Ð4.€€Your€statistical€test€of€model€fit€is€indifferent€to€what€population€is€sampled€by€your€data€soÐ  (0% Ðlong€as€the€sampling€has€been€suitably€random.€€So€to€avoid€setting€unwanted€precedents,€be€reticentÐ ô)„& Ðwhen€professing€to€identify€this€population.€€€And€if€your€fit€is€successful,€donððt€waste€time€and€riskÐ H+Ø' Ðconfusion€by€voicing€concern€for€whether€the€substantive€nature€of€the€latent€variables€implicated€by€yourÐ œ,,) Ðdata€might€differ€from€the€interpretation€you€have€antecedently€posited€for€them.€€Your€model€has€passedÐ ð-€*  Ðits€significance€test€and€thatððs€all€SEM€standards€require€for€confirmation€of€your€tested€hypothesis.Ð D/Ô+! ÐÒϰÒÓ  ÓÐ p ÐÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓAlthough€assent€to€these€norms€for€SEM€practice€is€reassuringly€far€from€universal€among€itsÐ ÄT Ðpractitioners,€I€sense€that€students€of€multivariate€methodology€are€being€indoctrinated€so€to€much€the€sameÐ ¨ Ðdegree€as€they€have,€at€least€until€recently,€been€put€in€thrall€to€NHST.€€Hence€if€respect€for€Meehl'sÐ lü Ðmetatheoretic€stature€can€be€transformed€into€educational€import,€SEM€instructors€should€be€urged€to€read€MeehlÐ ÀP Ðon€both€statistical€testing€and€verisimilitude.€€Although€SEM's€significance€testing€is€the€"strong€use"€that€MeehlÐ  ¤ Ðapproved€(cf.€1990òòcóó,€p.116f.;€1997,€p.407f.),€€it€is€far€òòtooóó€strong;€for€Meehl€insisted€that€we€must€also€allowÐ h ø Ðinterval€predictions,€and€the€notion€that€a€path€model€should€be€rejected€just€because€one€or€even€many€of€theÐ ¼ L  Ðpathweights€and€residual€covariances€it€posits€to€be€zero€arenððt€òòexactlyóó€so€must€have€seemed€as€absurd€to€MeehlÐ    Ðas€it€does€to€me€.€€Even€more€saliently,€Meehlððs€latter„day€push€to€give€regimented€confirmation€credit€to€near„Ð dô  Ðmiss€test€results€puts€him€in€direct€conflict€with€intolerance€for€model€solutions€that€fall€a€little€short€of€anÐ ¸H  Ðarbitrary€standard€of€near„perfection.€€And€surely€Meehl€would€have€been€appalled€at€admonitions€againstÐ  œ  Ðmodifying€oneððs€analysis€of€a€given€dataset€in€light€of€an€instructive€modeling€failure,€albeit€Meehlððs€own€failureÐ `ð  Ðto€publish€his€reasoned€views€on€scientific€discovery€deprives€us€of€appeal€to€his€authority€on€this€point.€€Ð ´D  ÐThe€other€huge€omission€in€Meehl's€metatheory,€this€one€unredeemed€and€foundational,€lies€in€itsÐ ˜ Ðtreating€the€confirmation€resulting€from€a€test€of€theory€òòTóó€as€change€in€the€credibility€of€òòTóó's€entirety€with€scarcelyÐ \ì Ðany€manifest€concern,€except€when€trying€to€divert€blame€for€test€failure€from€a€favored€theoryððs€core,€for€howÐ °@ Ðthat€distributes€differentially€over€the€ensemble€of€propositions€collected€in€òòTóó.€€When€òòTóó€implies€both€òòDóó€and€òòEóó,Ð ” Ðwhere€òòDóó€is€a€test€prediction€and€òòEóó€is€some€other€entailment€of€òòTóó€(òòEóó€could€be€a€core€postulate€in€òòTóó,€or€someÐ Xè Ðconjunct€in€òòTóó's€auxiliary€hypotheses,€or€an€additional€observation„language€consequence€of€òòTóó,€or€a€large€chunk€ofÐ ¬< ÐòòTóó€selected€for€special€interest),€verifying€or€refuting€òòDóó€does€not€in€general€corroborate€òòEóó€to€the€same€degree€orÐ  Ðeven€the€same€direction€as€it€does€for€òòTóó€as€a€whole.€€As€Meehl€himself€repeatedly€emphasized,€this€is€obviousÐ Tä Ðwhen€òòDóó€proves€false,€since€even€though€that€falsifies€òòTóó€and€every€other€theory/hypothesis/conjecture€that€alsoÐ ¨ 8 Ðimplies€òòDóó,€òòTóó€is€generally€a€conjunctive€composite€of€many€propositions€(technically,€òòTóó€can€be€viewed€asÐ ü!Œ Ðequivalent€to€the€conjunction€of€all€propositions€€entailed€by€it€or,€restricting€this€to€what€we€can€actuallyÐ P#à Ðverbalize,€to€any€finite€truncation€thereof€that€entails€the€rest),€and€only€one€of€those€components€needs€be€falseÐ ¤$4! Ðto€discredit€òòTóó€as€a€whole.€€So€to€grasp€the€full€epistemic€import€of€òòTóó's€òòDóó„test€misfire,€we€should€try€to€discern€theÐ ø%ˆ" Ðcredibilistic€impact€of€òòNot„Dóó€on€each€conjunct€in€òòTóó.€€(This€recognition€is€automatic€in€the€Bayesian€model€ofÐ L'Ü# Ðrational€belief€change,€except€that€its€principle€cannot€be€practiced€due€to€insufficient€identification€of€theÐ  (0% Ðrelevant€prior€and€conditional€credibilities.)€€Of€course€we€can't€do€it€all,€at€least€not€explicitly;€but€we€can€andÐ ô)„& Ðshould€attempt€to€search€out€and€appraise€those€components€of€òòTóó€that€seem€most€salient€for€what€we€want€to€doÐ H+Ø' Ðabout€this€discrediting€of€òòTóó.€€Above€all,€if€we€have€been€partisans€of€òòTóó€we€can€hope€to€salvage€what€we€findÐ œ,,) Ðattractive€in€its€core€by€altering€dubious€presumptions€in€its€auxiliaries.€€Meehl€took€pains€to€recognize€thisÐ ð-€*  Ðstrategy€of€theory€repair€(cf.€1990òòcóó,€p.121f.),€so€although€by€rights€he€should€have€said€more€about€distributingÐ D/Ô+! ÐÑLP¸!Ñâ LâÑ  Ñâ LâÑ  Ñblame€on€the€downside€of€test€outcomes€(cores€canððt€be€protected€come€what€may),€that€merits€only€a€criticalÐ p Ðfrown.€€But€failure€to€allocate€differential€credit€for€a€test's€òòsuccessóó€is€quite€another€matter.Ð ÄT ÐWhen€òòTóó€entails€òòDóó,€failure€of€òòDóó's€disproof€to€discredit€every€propositional€part€òòPóó€of€òòTóó€has€a€mirror€imageÐ ¨ Ðin€failure€of€verifying€òòDóó€to€confirm€every€òòPóó€in€òòTóó.€€Indeed,€when€òòDóó€and€òòEóó€are€both€deductive€consequences€of€òòTóó,Ð lü Ðverification€of€òòDóó€òòmayóó€also€confirm€òòEó󀄄€which€I€submit€is€prevailingly€presumptive,€else€why€should€we€be€soÐ ÀP Ðwilling€to€trust€new€predictions€from€a€theory€whose€previous€predictions€have€all€proved€successful?€„„€butÐ  ¤ Ðplainly€does€not€always€do€so.€€One€construction€showing€this€is€òòEóó€=€òò'Either€not„D€or€T'óó€which,€€when€òòTóó€entailsÐ h ø ÐòòDóó,€is€another€deductive€consequence€of€òòTóó€such€that€verifying€òòDóó€confirms€òòTóó€but€decreases€the€plausibility€of€òòEóóÐ ¼ L  Ðunless€òònot„Dóó€was€certain€at€outset.€€And€if€that€construction€is€too€artificial€to€trouble€you,€here€is€an€importantlyÐ    Ðrealistic€eruption€of€this€epistemic€problem:€Ð dô  ÐÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ ¸H  ÐÒ°„ÒÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓTªÓAdvanced€theories€in€the€same€real„world€area€of€application€often€agree€in€some€predictionsÐ bò  Ðwhile€disagreeing€on€others.€€Suppose€that€òòTóóòò1óó€and€òòTóóòò2óó€both€entail€òòDóó€for€a€test€not€yet€undertaken€whileÐ ¶F  ÐòòTóóòò1óó€also€entails€an€additional€prospect€òòEóó,€logically€independent€of€òòDóó,€that€òòTóóòò2óó€strongly€disputes€byÐ  š  Ðentailing€Ô‡&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô#†&×% %&m\‰2#ÔòòEóó.€€(òòEóó€vs.€Ô‡&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô#†&×% %&m\ã2#ÔòòEóó€may€emerge€from€elaboration€of€inconsistently€different€positions€on€aÐ ^î Ðcontroversial€uncertainty€which€is€not€directly€testable€because€òòEóó€or€its€denial€is€part€of€its€respectiveÐ ²B Ðtheory's€nonobservational€core.€€Or€òòEóó€could€be€the€possible€outcome€of€a€crucial€experiment€that,Ð – Ðtechnically€or€financially,€is€not€yet€feasible.)€€If€testing€verifies€òòDóó,€this€confirms€both€òòTóóòò1óó€and€òòTóóòò2óó.€€ButÐ Zê Ðsince€òòEóó€and€Ô‡&m\ %%&×Ô„Ô#†&×% %&m\;5#ÔòòEóó€are€mutually€exclusive€and€jointly€exhaustive,€any€increase€in€the€credibility€of€oneÐ ®> Ðmust€in€a€rational€belief€system€be€accompanied€by€decrease€in€credibility€of€the€other.€€The€onlyÐ ’ Ðrational€alternative€to€one€of€òòTóóòò1óó€or€òòTóóòò2óó€having€its€stand€on€òòEóó€disconfirmed€by€its€success€at€predictingÐ Væ ÐòòDóó€is€for€the€credibility€of€€òòEóó€and€hence€Ô€&m\ %%&×Ô„òòÔ€&×% %&m\ÔEóó€to€remain€unchanged€by€òòDóó's€verification.Ð ª: ÐÒ„ÏÒÓ  ÓÓªTÓÐ þŽ ÐÒ„°ÒÓ XÓÓ  ÓÓTªÓThe€point€to€be€taken€here€is€that€Meehl's€€righteous€condemnation€of€statistical€null„hypothesis€testing'sÐ ¨ 8 Ðmost€egregious€blunder,€thinking€that€confirmation€of€a€statistical€hypothesis€similarly€confirms€the€substantiveÐ ü!Œ Ðtheory€from€which€that€was€derived,€likewise€applies€to€unthinking€generalization€of€a€theory's€confirmation€by€aÐ P#à Ðsuccessful€test€thereof€to€increased€confidence€in€other€implications€of€the€theory.€€Some€of€those€are€indeedÐ ¤$4! Ðconfirmed€thereby,€but€others€are€not€and€may€even€be€disconfirmed€at€least€a€little.€€So€verifying€a€theoreticalÐ ø%ˆ" Ðprediction€is€„„€or€should€be€„„€only€the€first€phase€of€extracting€the€epistemic€import€of€this€test€result€for€theÐ L'Ü# Ðtheory€at€issue.Ð  (0% ÐLet€us€put€flesh€on€the€skeleton€of€this€argument€by€exploiting€the€fragment€of€Meehl's€theory€ofÐ ô)„& Ðschizophrenia€(his€"dominant€gene€conjecture")€mentioned€above€under€Theme€C.€€As€briefly€reviewed€there,Ð H+Ø' Ðtesting€this€foremostly€requires€a€binary€symptom€of€schizotypia€for€which,€in€a€selected€population€of€prospectiveÐ œ,,)  Ðresearch€subjects,€the€true„positive€and€false„negative€rates€are€known€or,€more€realistically,€well„estimated.€Ð ð-€*! ÐGiven€this€information,€together€with€certain€auxiliary€assumptions€about€schizotypia's€independence€ofÐ D/Ô+" Ðenvironmental€influences€and€vanishingly€small€probability€that€a€schizotypic€child's€parents€are€both€schizotypic,Ð p ÐMeehl€drew€upon€established€principles€of€Mendelian€genetics€to€predict,€for€each€of€several€categories€of€theÐ ÄT Ðblood€relatives€of€subjects€in€a€sample€diagnosed€with€high€confidence€to€be€schizophrenes,€and€using€convergentÐ ¨ Ðestimations€of€just€one€parameter,€what€proportion€in€each€category€tests€positive€for€schotypia.€€I'm€not€sure€howÐ lü Ðconclusively€Meehl€managed€to€appraise€this,€but€let's€assume€that€his€empirical€findings€matched€his€theory'sÐ ÀP Ðpredictions€well€within€sampling„noise€tolerance.€€So€Meehl's€theory€is€a€clear€winner€„„€right?€Ð  ¤ ÐMaybe€not,€once€the€news€gets€out€that€my€evil€twin,€WR2,€had€proposed€a€competing€theory€ofÐ h ø Ðschizophrenia€appealing,€just€like€Meehl,€to€a€defective€hereditary€condition€but€positing€this€to€be€not€a€badÐ ¼ L  Ðchromosomal€gene€but€corruption€of€a€distinctive€plasmid€having€a€special€propagation€mechanism:€€Each€cellÐ    Ðtolerates€just€one€plasmid€of€this€special€type,€which€adheres€to€the€cell's€inner€membrane€in€a€matching€socket.€Ð dô  ÐDuring€ordinary€growth€mitosis€this€socket€with€anchored€plasmid€duplicates€with€one€copy€going€to€each€side€ofÐ ¸H  Ðthe€dividing€cell,€whereas€during€meiosis€this€duplication€is€suppressed€so€that€only€one€of€the€two€resultingÐ  œ  Ðgametes€contains€this€anchored€plasmid.€€So€hereditary€transmission€of€this€special€plasmid€is€just€as€Mendelian€asÐ `ð  Ðinheritance€of€a€gene.€€Once€WR2€further€hypothesizes€that€a€defect€in€this€plasmid€causes€schizotypia€andÐ ´D  Ðsupplements€that€with€Meehl's€auxiliary€assumptions,€his€schiz„theory€predicts€the€same€pattern€of€schizotypicÐ ˜ Ðsymptoms€among€the€relatives€of€confirmed€schizophrenes€that€corroborates€Meehl's€version.€€So€how€do€òòTsMóóÐ \ì Ð(Meehl's€theory€of€schizophrenia)€and€òòTsRóó€(WR2's€counterpart€thereof)€compare€in€their€confirmation€by€data€„„Ð °@ Ðcall€it€òòDróó€for€data„on„relations€„„€that€affirms€their€mutually€predicted€pattern€of€schiz„symptom€propensitiesÐ ” Ðamong€relatives€of€schizophrenics?Ð Xè ÐFirst,€let's€evade€the€issue€of€post„hoc€predictions.€€No€one€who€believes€discovery€to€have€probativeÐ ¬< Ðvalue€can€agree€that€a€òòTóó€gets€no€epistemic€credit€from€entailing€a€òòDóó€known€prior€to€òòTóó's€conception.€€ButÐ  Ðmetatheory€of€that,€which€is€underdeveloped€apart€from€Bayesian€confirmation€which€doesnððt€cope€withÐ Tä Ðconception€onsets,€is€not€feasible€to€probe€here.€€So€let's€assume€that€WR2€proposed€òòTsRóó€before€we€learned€òòDróó.€Ð ¨ 8 ÐEven€so,€might€the€pre„test€credibility€of€òòTsRóó€at€least€be€discounted€€by€our€knowing€that€WR2€created€this€usingÐ ü!Œ ÐMeehl's€derivation€of€òòDróó€from€òòTsMóó€as€a€model€to€modify?€€I€intuit€that€this€does€indeed€downgrade€whateverÐ P#à Ðoutset€plausibility€òòTsRóó€would€have€otherwise;€but€that€too€belongs€to€the€metatheory€of€initial€credibilities€cryingÐ ¤$4! Ðfor€serious€discussion€elsewhere.€€So€to€get€on€with€what€can€be€addressed€here€even€if€inconclusively,€we€pick€upÐ ø%ˆ" Ðas€WR2€admits€that€òòTsRóó€was€designed€to€give€òòTsMóó€some€competition€and€that€it€does€seem€somewhat€lessÐ L'Ü# Ðplausible€than€Meehl's€version,€but€that€even€so€it€òòmightóó€be€true€and€merits€Popperian€appraisal€just€as€much€as€doÐ  (0% Ðless€audacious€theories.€Ð ô)„& ÐSo€how€are€the€credibilities€of€òòTsMóó€and€òòTsRóó€affected€by€verification€of€their€mutual€prediction€òòDróó?€€ByÐ H+Ø' ÐMeehl's€proposed€òòCòòióóóó„formula€they€should€be€corroborated€equally,€though€how€that€increases€their€respectiveÐ œ,,) Ðcredibilities€remains€unclear.€€But€no€matter€„„€this€is€the€wrong€question€to€be€asking.€€The€salient€issue,€whenÐ ð-€*  Ðassimilating€the€epistemic€import€of€a€verified€prediction€common€to€competing€theories,€is€how€our€opinions€onÐ D/Ô+! Ðthe€points€of€disagreement€among€them€should€be€òòdifferentiallyóó€adjusted.€€òòTsMóó€and€òòTsRóó€propose€differentÐ p Ðhereditary€mechanisms€for€delivering€òòDróó,€and€although€these€are€not€strictly€incompatible,€the€conjunction€of€òòTsMóóÐ ÄT Ðand€òòTsRóó€entails€òòDróó€only€conditional€on€the€additional€premise€that€these€two€mechanisms€work€in€perfectÐ ¨ Ðsynchrony,€i.e.€that€during€meiosis€a€haploid€cell€gets€a€schizy€gene€if€and€only€if€it€also€gets€a€schizy€plasmid.€Ð lü ÐSince€we€surely€€agree€that€this€is€tantamount€to€impossible,€the€component€of€òòTsMóó€(or€òòTsRóó)€that€posits€schizyÐ ÀP Ðgenes€(plasmids)€implicitly€denies€òòTsRóó's€(òòTsMóó's)€component€that€posits€schizy€plasmids€(genes).׃E×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú17Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€So€either€òòDróó'sÐ  ¤ Ðverification€leaves€the€credibility€of€each€theory's€core€posit€of€this€hereditary€transmissionððs€nature€unchangedÐ h ø Ðwhile€confirming€something€else€in€each€theory,€or€this€finding€must€confirm€the€delivery€posit€of€one€whileÐ ¼ L  Ðdisconfirming€the€other's€rejection€of€that.€€We€can't€rationally€let€òòDróó„verification€confirm€all€these€schiz„deliveryÐ    Ðaffirmations€and€denials,€so€which€of€them€are€winners€and€which€are€losers??€€€We€would€surely€favor€genes€overÐ dô  Ðplasmids,€since€chromosomal€inheritance€is€already€so€well€established.€€But€given€our€awareness€that€òòDróó€hasÐ ¸H  Ðconfirmed€òòTsRóó€as€well,€should€we€take€that€also€to€confirm€its€denial€of€schizy€genes€and€hence€downgrade€òòDróó'sÐ  œ  Ðcorroboration€of€òòTsMóó?€€More€broadly,€how€if€at€all€should€the€evident€conflict€between€òòTsMóó€and€òòTsRóó€change€ourÐ `ð  Ðopinion€of€òòDróó's€epistemic€import€for€òòTsMóó's€assorted€components€from€what€that€would€be€were€we€unaware€ofÐ ´D  ÐòòTsRóó€and/or€other€alternatives€to€òòTsMóó€that€entail€òòDróó?€€If€you€are€unsure€how€to€answer,€you€have€every€right€to€be.€Ð ˜ ÐFor€the€bottom€line€of€this€thought„experiment€is€that€€ÔñMÝ\ìÔÐ MÝ ÐÒ‘„ÒÒÜ„ÒòòÔƒý··ƒýƒýÔWe€have€no€metatheory€whatever,€nor€any€established€practice,€on€how€to€allocate€rationallyÐ ¡1 Ðdifferentiated€credibility€enhancements€and€sometimes€decrements€over€the€assorted€propositionalÐ õ… Ðcomponents€of€a€theory€whose€successful€prediction€has€confirmed€it€as€a€whole.Ð IÙ ÐÒ„ÜÒÒ„‘ÒÓªTÓóóÐ - ÐÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‹Xù!BÓÓTªÓIn€particular,€the€hypothetico„deductive€model€of€theory€confirmation€gives€us€no€good€reason€to€trustÐ G× Ðstill„unverified€predictions€taken€from€a€previously€corroborated€theory.€€We€do€have€other€reasons€for€cautiousÐ ›+ Ðconfidence€in€these,€starting€with€the€wholesale€empirical€induction€that€theories€having€a€strong€track€record€ofÐ ï  Ðpast€prediction€successes€are€a€good€bet€to€continue€their€quality€performances.€€But€it€is€unprofessional€to€leaveÐ C"Ó Ðour€understanding€of€nondemonstrative€inference€that€primitive.Ð —#'  ÐAccordingly,€let€me€urge€an€essential€startup€for€your€proper€evidential€adjudication€of€a€theory€(orÐ ë${! Ðhypothesis,€or€speculation)€òòTóó.€€By€"evidential"€I€mean€appraising€òòTóó€in€light€of€some€proposition€òòEóó€(possibly€quiteÐ ?&Ï" Ðcomplex)€inferred€from€òòTóó€whose€truth€can€be€determined€beyond€reasonable€doubt,€while€"infer"€is€whateverÐ “'#$ Ðsequence€of€reasoning€comprises€one€or€more€steps€of€form€"if€(that)€then€surely€(this)"€where€"then€surely"Ð ç(w% Ðalludes€to€whatever€connection€between€fore€and€aft€transmits€conviction€for€you.€€(I'm€addressing€the€inferencingÐ ;*Ë& Ðyou€live€by,€which€may€or€may€not€entirely€agree€with€mine€or€with€academic€texts€on€logic,€and€wherein€ð ðsurelyððÐ p Ðmay€sink€to€weaker€grades€of€ð ðprobablyðð.€€And€I'm€putting€òòyouóó€into€this€evaluation€process€because€if€you€don'tÐ ÄT Ðparticipate€at€least€to€the€extent€of€tracing€with€assent€or€demurrer€someone€else's€argument€from€òòTóó€to€òòEóó€youÐ ¨ Ðhaven't€earned€the€right€of€opinion€on€what€in€òòTóó€would€be€confirmed€by€establishing€òòEóó.)€€Finally,€my€subjunctiveÐ lü Ð"would€be"€a€few€words€back€is€to€point€out€that€articulating€òòEóó's€import€for€òòTóó€can€and€should€be€endeavoredÐ ÀP Ðbefore€incurring€the€possibly„considerable€cost€of€ascertaining€òòEóó.€€It€may€well€be€found€that€what€òòEóó€confirms€in€òòTóóÐ  ¤ Ðisn't€altogether€what€you€hope€to€learn€(e.g.€òòEóó€may€be€sensitive€mainly€to€òòTóó's€parameter€òòalphaóó€whereas€parameterÐ h ø Ðòòbetaóó€is€your€target€of€concern),€a€misdirection€which,€if€detected€in€time,€may€be€correctable€by€reworking€yourÐ ¼ L  Ðresearch€design.Ð    ЀThe€thesis€to€be€advanced€„„€one€to€which€Meehl€demonstrated€implicit€assent€by€his€frequent€cogentÐ dô  Ðreferences€in€(1990òòa,b,cóó)€to€ð ðderivation€chainsðð€„„€is€that€when€conjecture€òòTóó€has€evidential€consequence€òòEóó€(whereÐ ¸H  ÐòòTóó€comprises€all€the€core€and€auxiliary€propositions€invoked€to€reach€òòEóó),€verification€of€òòEóó€directly€confirms€onlyÐ  œ  Ðthose€components€of€òòTóó€that€matter€for€deriving€òòEóó€from€òòTóó.€€And€ascertaining€that€requires€you€to€articulate€withÐ `ð  Ðsome€care€the€inference€steps€(Meehlððs€ð ðderivation€chainsðð)€by€which€you€extract€òòEóó€from€òòTóó.€€To€undertake€this,Ð ´D  Ðyou€should€start€by€trying€to€write€down€all€the€assertions€in€your€theory„òòcumóó„auxiliary„assumptions€òòTóó,€andÐ ˜ Ðadditional€propositions€derived€from€those,€that€you€drew€upon€when€deriving€the€extant€or€prospective€evidenceÐ \ì ÐòòEóó€whose€confirmation€of€òòTóó€is€to€be€appraised.€€(In€principal,€òòEóó€should€comprise€all€the€potentially€forthcomingÐ °@ Ðevidence€that€bears€on€òòTóó;€in€practice,€of€course,€òòEóó€can€be€only€a€fragment€of€what€is€possible.)€€This€listing€is€notÐ ” Ðeasy,€especially€if€you€are€unpracticed€at€it.€€You€can't€reasonably€expect€to€get€all€of€what's€relevant€to€òòEóó€in€òòTóó€onÐ Xè Ðyour€first€try,€and€neither€will€you€manage€to€make€explicit€all€the€conceptual€complexities€that€are€more€or€lessÐ ¬< Ðelliptically€expressed€by€the€words€you€do€write€down.€€But€you€can€later€fill€in€what€you€initially€left€out,€andÐ  Ðcorrect€what€you€didn't€get€right,€when€discovering€need€for€that€as€you€proceed.€€(If€you€try€too€hard€to€avoidÐ Tä Ðomissions€and€errors€at€the€outset,€you'll€give€up€before€getting€well€underway.)€€For€simplicity,€let's€call€all€theÐ ¨ 8 Ðassertions€in€this€initial€listing€"premises"€of€òòTóó€even€when€some€are€consequences€of€others.€€Whenever€one€ofÐ ü!Œ Ðthese€is€a€separable€conjunction€(no€overarching€quantifiers),€split€the€conjuncts€apart€as€separate€premises.€€Next,Ð P#à Ðview€the€set€of€these€maximally€separated€premises€as€nodes€in€a€directed„path€diagram€wherein€evidence€òòEóó,€orÐ ¤$4! Ðbetter€the€set€of€its€separable€conjuncts,€is€also€included.€€(We€will€also€take€the€latter€to€be€premises,€as€indeedÐ ø%ˆ" Ðthey€are€prior€to€verification.)€€Finally,€to€complete€Phase€1€of€this€analysis,€put€a€direct€path€(you€could€drawÐ L'Ü# Ðthese€as€a€digraph,€but€a€two„dimensional€table€of€binary€entries€for€node€pairs€is€easier)€from€premise€òòióó€to€premiseÐ  (0% Ðòòjóó€just€in€case€òòióó€is€one€of€the€premises,€if€any,€from€which€premise€òòjóó€is€derived€in€the€inference€from€òòTóó€to€òòEóó.€€TheÐ ô)„& Ðbest€way€to€develop€this€is€to€ask€of€òòEóó,€or€of€each€separable€component€thereof,€what€are€the€listed€premisesÐ H+Ø' Ðdirectly€antecedent€to€that€in€your€òòEóó„derivation;€then€ask€the€same€question€for€each€node€directly€antecedent€to€òòEóó,Ð œ,,) Ðand€continue€to€identify€direct€antecedents€by€tracing€backward€in€the€derivation€until€every€node's€premise€isÐ ð-€*  Ðrated€for€whether€it€derives€at€least€partially€from€anything€else€in€òòTóó.Ð D/Ô+! ÐIn€Phase€2,€you€attempt€to€strip€òòTóó's€components€of€what€therein€is€irrelevant€to€their€inferential€productionÐ p Ðof€òòEóó.€€Identifying€what€we€may€call€the€"fluff"€therein€is€easy,€once€the€table€or€digraph€of€direct„inference€pathsÐ ÄT Ðis€in€hand:€€A€premise€is€fluff€€in€your€inference€from€òòTóó€to€òòEóó€is€just€in€case€its€node€is€not€on€any€path€leading€to€aÐ ¨ Ðcomponent€of€òòEóó,€and€can€be€erased€from€your€list€of€premises€deriving€òòEóó€from€òòTóó.€€Fluff€should€also€be€deletedÐ lü Ðfrom€òòTóó€unless€you€can€adduce€some€additional€prospective€evidence€which€connects€with€it;€but€ignore€that€untilÐ ÀP Ðyou€have€also€attempted€to€trim€fat€out€of€the€òòTóó€ò òððó ó€òòEóó€inference.€€Unfortunately,€the€fat€story€proves€to€be€moreÐ  ¤ Ðcomplexly€obscure€than€could€be€done€justice€here€even€if,€counterfactually,€I€were€completely€clear€on€it€in€myÐ h ø Ðown€thinking.€€But€I'm€proselytizing€here€not€for€a€switch€of€dogmas€but€only€for€some€serious€interactiveÐ ¼ L  Ðdiscussion€of€important€metatheoretic€issues€more€deeply€than€has€been€our€superficial€norm.€€So€if€I€leave€youÐ    Ðperplexed,€take€that€as€provocation€to€join€a€clarification€crusade.Ð dô  ÐBy€the€"fat"€in€a€theory€òòTóó,€relative€to€entailment€òòTóó€ò òððó ó€òòEóó,€I€mean€the€excess€in€components€of€òòTóó€that€qualifyÐ ¸H  Ðunder€Phase„1€analysis€as€inferentially€antecedent€to€òòEóó€but€are€stronger€than€this€inference€needs,€such€as€when€òòTóó,Ð  œ  Ðaddressing€processes€in€a€group€of€things,€presumes€that€all€the€group's€members€have€the€same€value€of€a€certainÐ `ð  Ðinput€variable€at€any€one€stage€of€the€process€whereas€what€follows€from€that€for€the€òòEóó€at€issue€depends€only€onÐ ´D  Ðthe€group€means€thereon.€€I€submit€that€when€we€try€to€judge€the€confirmational€import€of€evidence€òòEóó€for€theÐ ˜ Ðdiverse€components€of€a€hypothesis€òòTóó€that€entails€òòEóó,€(òòaóó)€only€the€propositions€in€òòTóó€on€which€some€previouslyÐ \ì Ðuncertain€component€of€òòEóó€is€directly€or€indirectly€dependent€in€this€derivation€receive€confirmation€by€virtue€ofÐ °@ Ðthis€deductive€connection€(though€additional€consequences€of€the€òòTóó„components€so€confirmed€would€perforceÐ ” Ðhave€their€credibilities€enhanced€as€well),€while€(òòbóó)€when€a€component€òòtóó€of€òòTóó€not€excluded€as€fluff€can€be€factoredÐ Xè Ðas€a€conjunction€of€fat€and€muscle€(where€òòtóó's€muscle€in€this€context€is€the€weakest€proposition€entailed€by€òòtóó€thatÐ ¬< Ðcan€replace€òòtóó€without€disrupting€inference€of€òòEóó€from€òòTóó)€its€fat€is€tantamount€to€fluff€and€earns€no€confirmationalÐ  Ðcredit€from€its€superfluous€participation€in€òòTóó's€entailing€òòEóó.€€There€are€loose€ends€to€tie€off€before€some€elaborationÐ Tä Ðof€this€proposal€can€be€canonized,€but€even€in€its€present€rough€outline€it€is€worth€your€contemplation€„„€as€someÐ ¨ 8 Ðfurther€comparison€of€competing€theories€òòTsMóó€and€òòTsRóó€may€show.€Ð ü!Œ ÐThe€parsing€of€òòTsMóó€that€enabled€WR2€to€produce€alternative€theory€òòTsRóó€of€schizophrenia€gives€a€niceÐ P#à Ðinformal€example€of€theoretic€fat€in€action.€("Informal"€in€that€I'm€not€going€to€construct€a€confirmation„pathÐ ¤$4! Ðarticulation€of€TsM€nor€even€try€to€verbalize€its€òòEóó€precisely.)€€The€heart€of€Meehl's€schizy„gene€hypothesis€„„€atÐ ø%ˆ" Ðleast€with€respect€to€the€near„relatives€evidence€he€was€pursuing€(Iððm€dumbing€down€his€more€intricate€theoryÐ L'Ü# Ðsomewhat€to€keep€the€thought„experiment€manageable)€„„€is€(òòaóó)€that€clinically€diagnosable€schizophrenia€is€rootedÐ  (0% Ðin€some€inherited€feature€which€potentiates€certain€environmental€conditions€during€maturation€to€bring€about€theÐ ô)„& Ðclinical€debility;€(òòbóó)€that€inheritance€of€this€feature€follows€the€Mendelian€pattern€of€dominant€single„factorÐ H+Ø' Ðâ âtransmission€through€the€fusion€of€haploid€gametes€that€may€or€may€not€carry€this€factor;€and€(òòcóó)€that€the€chanceÐ œ,,) Ðof€a€viable€human€infant's€having€received€this€factor€from€both€parents€is€negligible.׃H×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú18Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€What€follows€is€a€.5€Ð p Ðâ âprobability€that€any€one€child€of€a€parent€carrying€the€schiz„factor€also€receives€this,€from€which,€together€withÐ ÄT Ðsome€statistical„independence€presumptions€about€disparate€schiz„factor€transmissions€and€adjustments€forÐ ¨ Ðestimated€error€rates€of€schizotypic€symptoms,€the€incidence€of€schizotypia€at€various€genetic€distances€inÐ lü Ðrelatives€of€manifest€schizophrenics€can€be€inferred.€€But€additional€presumptions€about€the€substantive€nature€ofÐ ÀP Ðthis€posited€schiz„factor€donððt€matter€for€this€deduction:€€òòTsMóó's€and€òòTsRóó's€respective€positing€this€to€be€a€singleÐ  ¤ Ðgene,€or€plasmid,€are€superfluous€fat€laid€on€common€muscle€which€presumes€only€that€òòsomethingóó€in€humanÐ h ø Ðheredity€functions€so€and€can€be€larded€out€in€other€imaginative€ways€as€well.€€Ð ¼ L  ÐTo€be€sure,€fat€can€often€be€converted€to€muscle€by€additional€data:€€In€the€present€case,€testing€forÐ    Ðlinkage€between€the€schiz„factor€and€known€chromosome€markers€should€largely€settle€whether€this€factor€has€aÐ dô  Ðchromosome€site€and€hence€provisionally€qualifies€as€a€gene.€€But€just€the€schizotypic„symptoms„among„relativesÐ ¸H  Ðevidence€òòEróó€has€no€confirmational€preference€for€òòTsMóó€over€òòTsRóó.€€This€is€not€to€say€that,€given€only€this€evidenceÐ  œ  Ðfor€the€posited€schiz„factor's€reality,€that€add„on€hypothesizing€this€factor€to€be€a€gene€is€no€more€credible€thanÐ `ð  Ðhypothesizing€it€to€be€a€plasmid:€€What€is€already€well„established€about€inheritance€implies€that€gene€is€vastlyÐ ´D  Ðmore€plausible€than€plasmid.€€But€the€test€of€€òòTsMóó€whose€outcome€is€òòEróó€does€not€further€increase€that€plausibilityÐ ˜ Ðinequity,€at€least€not€by€virtue€of€being€a€premise€in€òòTsMóó€when€that€is€corroborated€as€a€whole€by€òòEróó.€€By€noÐ \ì Ðmeans€am€I€suggesting€that€Meehl€should€have€suppressed€òòTsMóó€ððs€conjecture€of€the€posited€transmitterððs€natureÐ °@ Ðor,€more€generically,€that€theoretic€fat€is€epistemically€deplorable.€€What€I€do€urge€is€that€every€stage€ofÐ ” Ðappraising€a€theory€òòTóó€should€include€serious€effort€to€discriminate€between€(òòaóó)€what€in€òòTóó€is€well„supported,€or€willÐ Xè Ðbe€if€the€planned€research€turns€out€confirmatory,€and€(òòbóó)€its€unsupported€components€that€under€present€planningÐ ¬< Ðwill€remain€so.€€If,€for€whatever€reason,€we€feel€an€allegiance€to€some€of€the€current€fat€in€òòTóó,€then€our€research€onÐ  ÐòòTóó€should€seek€to€design€an€evidential€procedure€for€whose€outcome€this€part€of€òòTóó€distinctly€matters.€€Otherwise,Ð Tä Ðwe€should€relax€òòTóó€to€admit€alternatives€in€this€respect,€judge€whether€we€really€care€which€of€those€is€correct€and,Ð ¨ 8 Ðif€we€do,€puzzle€out€what€observations€might€illuminate€that.€€Would€Meehl€have€agreed?€€Surely€so,€at€least€inÐ ü!Œ Ðbroad€outline.€€For€taking€NHST€confirmation€of€a€statistical€hypothesis€òòHóó€to€be€similarly€strong€support€for€theÐ P#à Ðsubstantive€òòTóó€from€which€òòHóó€professedly€derives,€which€Meehl€so€strongly€and€repeatedly€scorned,€is€simply€oneÐ ¤$4! Ðegregious€but€otherwise€undistinguished€instance€of€confounding€a€positive€test€resultððs€corroboration€of€aÐ ø%ˆ" Ðtheoryððs€muscle€for€that€prediction€with€corroboration€of€its€fat.Ð L'Ü# ÐThere€is€a€further€important€point€to€take€here,€a€view€from€the€edge€of€a€òòterra€incognitaóó€abyss.€€As€I€haveÐ  (0% Ðargued€in€Rozeboom,€1997,€p.349ff.,€a€major€facet€of€our€real„life€belief€systems€are€the€òòconditionalitiesóó€thereinÐ ô)„& Ðwhich€we€verbalize€by€varieties€of€"If€òòpóó€is€(or€were€to€be)€the€case,€then€probably€(to€some€degree€generally€lessÐ H+Ø' Ðthan€certainty)€so€would€òòqóó".€€Such€conditionalities€among€a€hypothesis€òòTóó's€components€that€hold€prior€to€verifyingÐ p Ðan€òòEóó€entailed€by€òòTóó€transduce€òòEóó's€confirmation€of€components€in€òòTóó's€muscle€for€òòEóó€into€adjusted€confidence€in€theÐ ÄT Ðconsequents€of€our€conditional€beliefs€whose€antecedents€are€premises€in€this€muscle.€€But€notice€how€deep€thisÐ ¨ Ðdrives€the€conundrum€of€warranted€belief:€€Before€working€out€how€data€on€the€relatives€of€schizophrenes€mightÐ lü Ðteach€us€more€about€the€causes€of€this€condition,€Meehl€speculated€that€a€single€dominant€gene€transmitted€this;Ð ÀP Ðand€if€his€thinking€had€been€sufficiently€astute€and€comprehensive€(more€so€than€could€reasonably€be€expected€inÐ  ¤ Ðreality)€he€would€have€partitioned€this€conjecture€as€Mendelian€transmission€by€a€carrier€of€unspecified€natureÐ h ø Ðconjoined€with€a€set€of€alternative€possibilities€for€what€that€nature€might€be.€€And€from€there,€his€belief€systemÐ ¼ L  Ðshould€(superhumanly)€have€arrived€at€a€set€of€conditional€beliefs€of€form€"if€schizotaxia€has€a€MendelianÐ    Ðhereditary€transmitter,€then€it€is€likely€to€degree€ðð€that€the€specific€nature€of€this€is€ððÔ ½½ Ôðð,€where€ðð€is€a€strength€ofÐ dô  Ðconditional€credibility€and€ðð€ranges€over€a€set€of€alternatives€wherein€gene€and€plasmid€are€two€out€of€many.€€InÐ ¸H  Ðpractice,€of€course,€no€one€even€as€bright€as€Meehl€could€explicitly€work€all€those€out€in€advance.€€But€whenÐ  œ  Ðinterpreting€evidence€òòEóó€from€relatives€of€schizophrenes€as€confirmation€of€the€muscle€in€òòTsMóó,€òòTsRóó,€and€yet€otherÐ `ð  Ðdelivery€conjectures,€before€adjusting€his€prior€opinions€about€the€transmitter's€nature€he€would€by€rights€need€toÐ ´D  Ðactivate€his€latent€conditional€beliefs€specifying€alternatives€for€that€with€the€same€ðð„strengths€they€would€haveÐ ˜ Ðhad€were€they€revived€prior€to€learning€òòEóó.€€Thus€I€put€it€to€you:€€Holistic€models€of€hypothesis€testing€haveÐ \ì Ðscarcely€a€clue€to€the€subjunctive€underlay€of€evidence€interpretation.€€And€to€my€knowledge,€there€exists€noÐ °@ Ðapplied€epistemology€on€the€management€„„€acquisition€and€execution€„„€of€our€subjunctive€conditional€beliefsÐ ” Ðbeyond€what€is€implied€by€logical€entailment.€Would€that€this€were€otherwise.Ð Xè ÐThere€are€still€other€issues€of€selective€confirmation€I€would€have€liked€to€raise€with€this€example,€inÐ ¬< Ðparticular€(òòióó)€what€we€should€say€about€an€alternative€to€òòTsMóó€that€expands€Meehl's€pair€of€alleles€(Normal€vs.Ð  ÐSchizy)€at€some€determinate€chromosome€site€into€a€larger€plurality€of€alleles€there€that€yield€distinguishableÐ Tä Ðgrades€of€schizotaxia,€and€(òòiióó)€how€the€difference€between€a€theory€deploying€implicitly€defined€(open)€theoreticalÐ ¨ 8 Ðconcepts€and€its€corresponding€Ramsey€sentence€would€play€out€in€this€multiple€alleles€conjecture.€€But€it'sÐ ü!Œ Ðprobably€just€as€well€at€present€not€to€heap€more€fuel€on€what€I€hope€has€already€become€an€uneasy€fire.€€(If€I'veÐ P#à Ðdone€my€job,€you€should€be€feeling€some€heat.)€€What€should€matter€for€you€is€the€take„home€message€that€weÐ ¤$4! Ðstill€have€no€adjudicated€guidelines€to€refine€our€experientially€honed€intuitions€on€how€belief€changes€should€beÐ ø%ˆ" Ðallocated€within€a€theory€in€response€to€supporting€evidence.€€There€are€major€metatheoretic/epistemic€advancesÐ L'Ü# Ðto€be€sought€here.€€So€if€you're€young,€analytically€skillful,€and€boldly€independent€in€your€thinking,€considerÐ  (0% Ðtrying€to€be€first€to€succeed.Ð ô)„& ÐÐ H+Ø' Ðâ âÑ  ÑÐ œ,,) ÐÒÏ„Òà „ àF.€Meehl€on€cliometric€theory€appraisal.׃0×Ý ƒ5#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú19Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð p Ðâ âIn€the€symphony€of€Meehl's€distinguished€career,€his€last€movement€reprises€in€a€new€key€with€moreÐ ÄT Ðadvanced€orchestration€the€theme€of€his€greatest€youthful€hit.€€In€òòClinical€versus€Statistical€Predictionóó€(1954òòbóó),Ð ¨ ÐMeehl€made€the€case€that€clinical€psychology€can€diagnose€psychiatric€conditions€much€more€effectively€byÐ lü Ðmodern€quantitative€methods€of€multivariate€estimation€than€by€the€therapist's€intuitive€interpretation€ofÐ ÀP Ðqualitative€impressions.€€Then€starting€in€the€mid„'80s,€initially€provoked€by€and€later€collaborating€with€FaustÐ  ¤ Ð(Meehl,€1984;€Meehl,€1992òòbóó;€Faust€&€Meehl,€2002),€he€developed€the€prospect€of€applying€the€same€statisticalÐ h ø Ðprocedures€to€diagnosing€the€epistemic€promise€of€theories€still€wanting€final€adjudication,€with€ð ðensconcementððÐ ¼ L  Ð(survival€€longevity€)€taken€to€be€the€primary€criterion€of€a€theoryððs€success.€€With€the€progenitor€of€cliometricÐ    Ðmetatheory€(òòCMóó)€here€to€give€you€an€unadulterated€overview€of€its€nature€and€promise,€further€outsider€remarksÐ dô  Ðon€that€from€me€would€€be€pointless.€€Even€so,€I€would€like€to€air€one€concern€which€I€suspect€will€also€proveÐ ¸H  Ðbootless.Ð  œ  ÐIf€Faust€&€Meehlððs€aspirations€for€òòCMóó€achieve€some€fulfillment,€there€are€both€positive€and€negativeÐ `ð  Ðreturns€to€anticipate.€€On€the€upside,€whenever€a€large€assemblage€of€€multidimensional€data€can€be€collated,Ð ´D  Ðmodern€methods€of€multivariate€analysis€can€discover€therein,€and€induce€provisional€explanations€for,Ð ˜ Ðpatterning€far€beyond€what€everyday€perception€of€those€event€records€could€discern.€€Which€is€to€say€that€muchÐ \ì Ðmight€be€learned€from€òòCMóó€applications,€albeit€just€what€may€be€harder€to€predict€.€But€countervailingly,€wereÐ °@ ÐòòCMóó€to€develop€scales€for€predicting€a€theoryððs€ensconcement,€and€support€for€research€motivated€by€aÐ ” Ðprovocative€new€theory€were€made€dependent€on€the€theoryððs€scoring€high€on€that€forecast,€work€of€greatÐ Xè Ðprospective€payoff€could€well€be€stifled.€€Careful€choice€of€prediction€targets€for€òòCMóóððs€rating€scales€would€beÐ ¬< Ðcrucial€were€they€ever€to€be€used€for€research€evaluation€in€practice;€and€different€scales€with€different€validityÐ  Ðcriteria€should€be€constructed€for€appraising€different€stages€of€progressive€research.€€Whether€a€theory€that€hasÐ Tä Ðbeen€in€play€for€quite€some€time€rates€high€on€its€ensconcement€forecast€could€be€an€argument€for€continuing€itsÐ ¨ 8 Ðsupport;€but€for€new€theoretic€notions€barely€unfurled,€I€for€one€would€urge€that€those€with€promise€to€generateÐ ü!Œ Ðintriguingly€novel€data€configurations€be€encouraged€for€whatever€abductive€harvests€those€may€yield,Ð P#à Ðnevermind€the€odds€on€whether€their€initiating€theories€flourish€or€flounder€in€endurance.Ð ¤$4! ÐÓ  ÓÐ ø%ˆ" ÐÓ-ÜÜDœôL¤ÜÜ‹Xù!-ÓÐ  L'Ü# ÐÑÂîÑÑ€IJÑÑ€OP¸ÑÑ€hÕ²ÑÑ€fÏLÑÑ€_ÏDÑàQ..@ìàÔÿÄÄÿÿÔEpitaph:ˆÐ p ÐÓ  ÓÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜDœƒXEÓÓ TÓMeehl's€autobiography€communicates€so€much€personal€information€that€it€takes€some€effort€(at€least€itÐ ÄT Ðdid€for€me)€to€appreciate€how€little€it€reveals€about€affect€and€value€in€his€adult€life€beyond€the€satisfaction€heÐ Í] Ðtook€from€intellectual€achievements€and€occasional€pique€when€some€appeared€not€to€achieve€the€professionalÐ Öf Ðimpact€they€deserved.€€We€get€terse€descriptions€of€certain€stressful€experiences€in€Meehl's€youth,€two€life„Ð ßo Ðthreatening€events€later€in€life,€and€repeated€reference€to€various€academic€colleagues€as€friends;€but€otherwiseÐ èx Ðnot€a€word€about€what,€beyond€his€intellectual€accomplishments,€was€emotionally€meaningful€to€him.€€NothingÐ ñ  Ðsaid€about€family€later€than€his€report€of€losing€both€parents€at€separate€times€early€in€his€adolescence;€and€onlyÐ ú Š Ðfrom€the€memorium€page€in€Meehl€(1973òòa)óó€have€I€learned€that€in€midlife€he€also€lost€a€wife.€€No€mention€ofÐ  “ Ðaffect€taken€from€music,€fiction,€visual€arts,€drama,€or€recreations.€€And€€not€a€word€about€the€how,€why,€andÐ  œ  Ðwhat€of€his€"dozen€years€as€a€Luthern"€(1989,€p.374)€when€he€had€claimed€his€early€religious€indoctrination€toÐ ¥  Ðhave€been€negligible€(1989,€p.338)€and€later,€long€after€discontinuing€sectarian€affiliation,€he€professed€to€holdÐ ®  Ðno€theological€opinions€(1989,€p.378).€€It€would€be€interesting€to€know€how€Meehl€reconciled€theological€andÐ '·  Ðscientific€beliefs€during€this€period.Ð 0À  ÐInsomuch€as€Meehl€manifestly€prized€intellectual€honesty€and€competence€above€all€else,€it€seemsÐ 9É Ðappropriate€to€close€with€a€word€on€his€own€stature€in€this€regard,€especially€insomuch€as€his€overall€brillianceÐ BÒ Ðmay€blind€future€historians€of€psychology€to€one€important€respect€„„€creativity€„„€in€which€he€was€merely€good.€Ð KÛ ÐFortunately,€since€otherwise€I€would€risk€seeming€disrespectful,€Meehl€himself€adroitly€acknowledged€much€ofÐ Tä Ðthis€in€his€autobiography:Ð ]í ÐÒ‘„ÒÒ‘ÏÒÐ fö ÐÒF‘ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ôöíò%&×ÔAt€heart€I€am€more€of€a€knowledge„absorber,€knowledge„integrator,€and€knowledge„transmitter€thanÐ oÿ Ðknowledge„producer.€€...€[big€excision]€...€€a€scientist€should€do€what€he€is€good€at,€and€I€am€better€atÐ x Ðconceptualizing€than€at€experimenting.€€My€synthetic„creative€talents€are€only€somewhat€superior€to€mostÐ  Ðpsychologists€(cramped€by€the€dustbowl€empiricist€flavor€of€my€Minnesota€training?);€but€my€analytic€powersÐ Š Ðare,€I€believe,€exceptionally€strong€and€well€cultivated€through€long€association€with€top„caliber€philosophersÐ “# Ðof€science.€€Knowledge€is€advanced€in€several€ways,€and€it€has€been€my€experience€that€there€are€many€moreÐ œ, Ðpsychologists€who€are€capable€of€performing€a€clever€and€replicable€experiment€than€there€are€high„levelÐ ¥5 Ðideators€who€can€create€a€novel€concept€or€deeply€analyze€a€familiar€one,€especially€one€in€controversy.€Ð ®> ÐLiving€off€the€taxpayer,€I€feel€it€appropriate€to€do€what€I€am€best€at,€especially€since€(1)€it's€rare,€and€(2)€I€findÐ · G Ðit€more€fun.€(1989,€p.374)Ô€&×%òôöíÔÐ À!P ÐÒ„FÒÐ É"Y ÐÔ³ý³ý³ýÔExactly!Ð Ò#b  Ðà 4 àà0 Œ àà0ä Œ G"Œ G"àà < àÔÿKKÿÿÔREFERENCES€ÐÛ$k! ä G"ä G" ÐÒ,„ÒÒî‘ÒÐ ä%t"! ÐÒ„,Òà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àBolles,€R.€C.€(1962).€The€difference€between€statistical€and€scientific€hypotheses.€€òòPsychologcal€Reportsóó,€11,€639„Ðí&}#"Üê$Üê$ Ð645.Ð ö'†$# Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àCampbell,€D.€T.€(1957).€Methodological€suggestions€from€a€comparative€psychology€of€knowledge€processes.€€€òòà @¬# àÐ ÿ(%$ ÐInquiryóó,€2,152„182.Ð*˜&%Üê$Üê$ Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àCampbell,€D.€T.,€&€Fiske,€D.€W.€(1959).€Convergent€and€discriminant€validation€by€the€multitrait„multimethodÐ +¡'& Ðmatrix.€òòPsychological€Bulletinóó,€56,€81„105.Ð,ª('Üê$Üê$ ÐÒ£îÒà „ àCarnap,€R.€(1962).€òòLogical€foundations€of€probability,€2nd€ed.óó€Chicago:€Univ.€of€Chicago€Press.Ð #-³)( Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àCronbach,€L€J.€&€Meehl,€P.€E.€(1955).€€Construct€validity€in€psychological€tests.€òòPsychological€Bulletinóó,€52,€281„Ð ,.¼*) Ðâ â302.€Ð5/Å+*Ü5%Ü5% ÐÑhÕ²*Ñâ hâÑ,ÂÑÑ  Ñâ hâÑ  Ñà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àà0ÜÜ5%Ü5%àà „ àCronbach,€L.€J.€&€Meehl,P.€E.€(1955).€Construct€validity€in€psychological€tests.€€òòPsychological€Bulletinóó,€52,€281„302.ÐpÜ5%Ü5% Ðâ âà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àFaust,€D.,€&€Meehl,P.€E.€(2002).€Using€meta„scientific€studies€to€clarify€or€resolve€questions€in€the€philosophy€andÐ y  Ðhistory€of€science.€òòPhilosophy€of€Scienceóó,€69,€S185„S196.ЂÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àFeigl,€H.€(1950).€Existential€hypotheses:€Realistic€versus€phenomenalistic€interpretations.€òòPhilosophy€of€Scienceóó,€17,Ð ‹ Ð35„62.Д$Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àFeigl,€H.€(1956).€Some€major€issues€and€developments€in€the€philosophy€of€science€of€logical€empiricism.€In€H.Ð - ÐFeigl€&€M.€Scriven€(Eds.)€òòMinnesota€studies€in€the€philosophy€of€science,€(vol.€1)óó.€Minneapolis:€UniversityÐ ¦ 6 Ðof€Minnesota€Press.Я ?Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àGarner,€W.€R.,€Hake,€H.€W.,€&€Eriksenm,€C.€W.€(1956).€Operationism€and€the€concept€of€perception.€òòPsychologicalÐ ¸ H ÐReviewóó,€63,€149€169.ÐÁ Q Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àGolden,€R.€&€Meehl,P.€E.€(1978).€Testing€a€single€dominant€gene€theory€without€an€accepted€criterion€variable.€Ð Ê Z  ÐòòAnnals€of€Human€Genetics€Londonóó,€41,€507„514.ÐÓc Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àHempel,€C.€G.€(1945).€Studies€in€the€logic€of€confirmation.€€òòMindóó,€54,€1„26,€97„120.Ð Ül  Ðà „ àHull,€C.€L.€(€1943).€òòPrinciples€of€behavior.óó€New€York:€Appleton„Century„Crofts.Ð åu  Ðà „ àJames,€W.€(1897)€òòThe€will€to€believeóó.€€€Longmans,€Green,€&€Co.Ð î~ Ðà „ àLazarsfeld,€P.€F.,€&€Henry,€N.€H.€€(1968)€òòLatent€structure€analysisóó.€€Boston:€Houghton€Mifflin.Ð ÷‡ Ðà „ àLivermore,€J.€M.€&€Meehl,€P.€E.€(1967)€The€virtues€of€M'Naghten.€òòMinnesota€Law€Reviewóó,€51,€789„856.Ð  Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMacCorquodale,€K.,€&€Meehl,€P.€E.€(1948).€On€a€distinction€between€hypothetical€constructs€and€interveningÐ  ™ Ðvariables.€òòPsychological€Reviewóó,€55,€95„107.ТÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMacCorquodale,€K.,€&€Meehl,€P.€E.€(1954)€E.€C.€Tolman.€€In€W.€K.€Estes€et.al.,€òòModern€learning€Theoryóó€(pp.€177„Ð « Ð266).€€New€York:€Appleton„Century„Crofts.Ð$´Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1954).€òòClinical€versus€statistical€prediction:€A€theoretical€analysis€and€a€review€of€the€evidenceóó.Ð -½ ÐMinneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press.Ð6ÆÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àà0ÜÜ5%Ü5%àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1959)€Some€technical€and€axiological€problems€in€the€therapeutic€handling€of€religious€and€valuationalÐ ?Ï Ðmaterial.€òòJournal€of€Counseling€Psychologyóó,€6,€255„259.ÐHØÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1962).€Schizotaxia,€schizotypy,€schizophrenia.€òòAmerican€Psychologistóó,€17,€827„838.Ð Qá Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1965).€Philosophy€of€science€and€Christian€Theology.€In€J.€Bodensieck€(Ed.),€òòEncyclopedia€of€theÐ Zê ÐLuthern€Church,€Vol.€3óó€(pp.1894„1896).€Minneapolis:€Augsburg€Publishing€House.ÐcóÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1970).€Psychology€and€the€criminal€law.€òòUniversity€of€Richmond€Law€Reviewóó,€5,€1„30.Ð l ü Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1971).€Law€and€the€fireside€inductions.€Some€reflections€of€a€clinical€psychologist.€òòJournal€of€SocialÐ u! ÐIssuesóó,€27,€65„100.Ð~"Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àà0ÜÜ5%Ü5%àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1972).€Specific€genetic€etiology,€psychodynamics€and€therapeutic€nihilism.€€òòInternational€Journal€ofÐ ‡#  ÐMental€Healthóó,€1,€10„27.€€Reprinted€in€Meehl,€òòPsychodiagnosis:€Selected€papersóó€(pp.€182„199).Ð $ !  ÐMinneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press,€1973.Й%)"!Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1973).€òòPsychodiagnosis:€Selected€papersóó.€Minneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press,€1973.Ð ¢&2#" Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àà0ÜÜ5%Ü5%àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1973).€MAXCOV„HITMAX:€A€taxonomic€search€method€for€loose€genetic€syndromes.€€InÐ «';$# ÐòòPsychodiagnosis:€Selected€papersóó€(pp.€200„224).€Minneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press,€1973.д(D%$Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1973).€Why€I€do€not€attend€case€conferences.€In€òòPsychodiagnosis:€Selected€papersóó€(pp.€225„302).Ð ½)M&% ÐMinneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press,€1973.ÐÆ*V'&Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1978).€Theoretical€risks€and€tabular€asterisks:€Sir€Karl,€Sir€Ronald,€and€the€slow€progress€of€softÐ Ï+_(' Ðpsychology.€òòJournal€of€Consulting€and€Clinical€Psychologyóó,€46,€806„834.€€Reprinted€in€Meehl,€òòSelectedÐ Ø,h)( Ðphilosophical€and€methodological€papersóó€(pp.€1„43).€C.€A.€Anderson€and€K.€Gunderson€(Eds.)€Minneapolis:Ð á-q*) ÐUniversity€of€Minnesota€Press,€1991.Ðê.z+*Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àMeehl,€P.€E.€(1984).€Forward.€In€D.€Faust,€òòThe€limits€of€scientific€reasoningóó.€€Minneapolis:€University€of€MinnesotaÐ ó/ƒ,+ ÐÔ_ÔPress.Ðü0Œ-,Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1989).€Autobiography.€In€G.€Ô_ÔLindzeyÔ_Ô€(Ed.òò)€History€of€psychology€in€autobiographyóó,€Vol.€VIII€(pp.Ð p Ð337„389).€Stanford,€CA:€Stanford€University€Press.Ðy Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1990)€Why€summaries€of€research€on€psychological€theories€are€often€Ô_ÔuninterpretableÔ_Ô.€òòPsychologicalÐ ‚ ÐReportsóó,€66,€195„244.€(òòaóó)ЋÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1990)€Appraising€and€amending€theories:€The€strategy€of€Ô_ÔLakatosianÔ_Ô€defense€and€two€principles€thatÐ ”$ Ðwarrant€using€it.€€òòPsychological€Inquiryóó,€1,€108„141,€173„180.€(òòbóó)Ð-Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1990)€òòCorroboration€and€verisimilitude:€Against€Ô_ÔLakatosÔ_Ôðð€ð ðsheer€leap€of€faithóóð ð€(Working€Paper,Ð ¦ 6 ÐÔ_ÔMCPSÔ_Ô„90„01).€Minneapolis:€Center€for€Philosophy€of€Science,€University€of€Minnesota.Я ?Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1991)€Theoretical€risks€and€tabular€asterisks:€€€Sir€Karl,€Sir€Ronald,€and€the€slow€progress€of€softÐ ¸ H Ðpsychology.€€In€C.€A.€Anderson€&€K.€Ô_ÔGundersonÔ_Ô€(Ô_ÔEdsÔ_Ô.),€òòSelected€philosophical€and€methodological€papersÐ Á Q  Ðóó(pp.€1„43).€€Minneapolis:€University€of€Minnesota€Press€(Original€work€published€1978).ÐÊ Z Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1992)€The€Miracle€Argument€for€realism:€An€important€lesson€to€be€learned€by€generalizing€fromÐ Óc  ÐCarrier's€counter„examples.€òòStudies€in€History€and€Philosophy€of€Scienceóó,€23,€267„282.€(òòaóó)ÐÜl Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1992)€Ô_ÔCliometricÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmetatheoryÔ_Ô:€The€actuarial€approach€to€empirical€history„based€philosophy€of€science.Ð åu  ÐòòPsychological€Reportsóó,€71,€339„467.€(òòbóó)Ðî~Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1992)€Factors€and€taxa,€traits€and€types,€differences€of€degree€and€differences€in€kind.€€òòJournal€ofÐ ÷‡ ÐPersonalityóó,€60,€117€174.€Ô_Ô(òòcóó)Ô_ÔÐÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1997)€The€problem€is€epistemology,€not€statistics:€Replace€significance€tests€by€confidence€intervalsÐ  ™ Ðand€quantify€accuracy€of€risky€numerical€predictions.€€In€L.€L.€Harlow,€S.€A.€Ô_ÔMulaikÔ_Ô,€&€J.€H.€Steiger€(Ô_ÔEdsÔ_Ô.)Ð ¢ ÐòòWhat€if€there€were€no€significance€tests?óó€Mahwah,€NJ:€ErlbaumЫÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€Ô_ÔCliometricÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmetatheoryÔ_Ô€II:€Criteria€scientists€use€in€theory€appraisal€and€why€it€is€rational€to€do€so.Ð $´ ÐòòPsychological€Reportsóó,€91,€339„404.Ð-½Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àÔ_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(2004€online)€The€power€of€quantitative€thinking.€Currently€available€at€website€Ð 6Æ ÐÓB+< Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‹Xù!BÓ€€à0 4 àà Œ àÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔÿÔwww.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/óóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔÿÔ€ÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!<Ü‹Xù!BÓÐ?Ï45%45% Ðà „ àPopper,€K.€R.€(1959).€òòThe€logic€of€scientific€discovery,€2nd€ed.óó€London:€Hutchinson€&€Co.Ð HØ Ðà „ àPopper,€K.€R.€(1972).€òòObjective€knowledge.óó€€Oxford:€Clarendon€Press.Ð Qá Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àRogers,€A.€I.,€&€Ô_ÔHoelÔ_Ô,€D.€(1997).€Peptic€ulcer€disease:€Tracing€scienceððs€journey€through€the€gut.€€òòPostgraduateóóÐ Zê ÐòòMedicine€onlineóó,€102(5).ÐcóÜ5%Ü5% Ðà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1960).€€A€note€on€Ô_ÔCarnapÔ_Ô's€meaning€criterion.€òòPhilosophical€Studiesóó,€11,€33„38.Ð l ü Ðà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1962).€Of€selection€operators€and€Ô_Ôsemanticists.òòPhilosophyÔ_Ô€of€Scienceóó,€31,€282„285.Ð u! Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1970).€The€art€of€Ô_ÔmetascienceÔ_Ô;€or,€what€should€a€psychological€theory€€be?€In€J.€R.€Royce€(Ed.),Ð ~" ÐòòToward€unification€in€psychologyóó.€€Toronto:€Toronto€€University€Press.€(òòaóó)Ї# Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1970).€The€crisis€in€philosophical€semantics.€In€M.€Ô_ÔRadnerÔ_Ô€&€S.€€Ô_ÔWinocurÔ_Ô€(Ô_ÔEdsÔ_Ô.),€òòMinnesotaÐ $ !  Ðstudies€in€the€philosophy€of€science€(Vol.€IV)óó.€Minneapolis:€€University€of€Minnesota€Press.€(òòbóó)Й%)"!Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1972).€Problems€in€the€psycho„philosophy€of€knowledge.€€In€J.€R.€€Royce€&€W.€W.€Ô_ÔRozeboomÔ_ÔÐ ¢&2#" Ð(Ô_ÔEdsÔ_Ô.),€òòThe€psychology€of€knowingóó.€New€York:€Gordon€&€Breach.€Ð«';$#Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1984).€Dispositions€do€explain;€or,€picking€up€the€pieces€after€€Hurricane€Walter.€òòAnnals€ofÐ ´(D%$ ÐTheoretical€Psychologyóó,€1,€205„223.€New€York:€Plenum.н)M&%Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€W.€W.€(1997).€Good€science€is€Ô_ÔabductiveÔ_Ô,€not€Ô_ÔhypotheticoÔ_Ô„deductive.€€In:€Harlow,€L.€L.€&€Ô_ÔMulaikÔ_Ô,€S.€A.Ð Æ*V'& Ð(Ô_ÔEdsÔ_Ô.)€€òòWhat€if€there€were€no€significance€testsóó.€Mahwah,€NJ:€Lawrence€Erlbaum€Assoc.ÐÏ+_('Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔTolmanÔ_Ô,€E.€C.€(1959).€Principles€of€purposive€behavior.€In:€Koch,€S.€(ed.),€òòPsychology:€€A€study€of€a€science,€Vol.€2óó.Ð Ø,h)( ÐNew€York:€Ô_ÔMcGrawÔ_Ô„Hill.Ðá-q*)Ü5%Ü5% Ðà „ àà0 Ü àà „ àÔ_ÔWallerÔ_Ô,€N.€F.€&€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€P.€E.€(1998).€€Ô_ÔMultivariateÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔtaxometricÔ_Ô€procedures:€Distinguishing€types€from€Ô_ÔcontinuuaÔ_Ô.€Ð ê.z+* ÐNewbury€Parl.€CA:€Sage.Ðó/ƒ,+Ü5%Ü5% Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àÐ ü0Œ-, ÐÑ_ÏD,Ñâ _âÑ ÂÑâ _âÑ  ÑÒ„ÒÒ£Òà€¾#¾#z¾#àˆÐ » Ðà  à€€***************************€Appendix€cut€from€published€version€€****************************Ð Ä  ÐÐ Í ÐÑ  ÑÓ-ÜÜDœôL¤ÜÜ‹Xù!-ÓàQ}};‚àÔ€Š¤+ˆ%&×ÔSemantic€ImperfectionsˆÐ Ö ÐÓE+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜDœƒXEÓÐ ß$ ÐÔ€&×%+ˆŠ¤Ô.Whatever€reservations€one€may€have€about€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ôððs€ð ðverisimilitudeðð€conception€of€€theoreticÐ è- Ðveracity,€€it€has€the€considerable€virtue€of€seriously€attempting€to€recognize€in€some€detail€that€this€is€ratherÐ ñ 6 Ðmore€intricate€than€a€simplistic€true€or€false.€€However,€it€does€not€much€stretch€the€classical€binaryÐ ú ? Ðconception€of€truth€to€grade€the€€partial€truth€of€a€set€or€conjunction€òòSóó€of€sentences€by€some€function€of€aÐ  H Ðbinary„truth€distribution€over€òòSóó.€€(òòSóóððs€proportion€of€true€constituents€would€be€simplest,€but€we€could€alsoÐ  Q  Ðdefine€weighted€proportions€if€we€can€quantify€the€relative€importance€of€òòSóóððs€assorted€constituents.)€€A€deeperÐ Z  Ðchallenge€is€to€understand€how€language€usefully€represents€the€external€world€for€us€with€concepts€that€areÐ c  Ðunclear.€€It€is€an€ineluctable€inductive€inference€from€close€analysis€of€the€words€we€live€by€that€theirÐ 'l  Ðmeanings€are€always€blurred€at€their€edges€and€often€most€of€the€way€to€center,€which€is€to€say€that€even€ourÐ 0u  Ðsimplest€sentences,€whether€conjoined€in€scientific€conjectures€or€uttered€in€everyday€living,€have€someÐ 9~ Ðdegree€of€truth€deficit€due€to€their€€imperfect€clarity.€€Despite€the€ubiquity€of€this€commonplace€semanticÐ B‡ Ðimperfection,€I€have€seen€recent€evidence€that€a€considerable€proportion€of€€psychologists€in€at€least€someÐ K Ðsectors€of€quantitative€applications€profess€to€find€incomprehensible€the€very€thought€of€approximate€truth,Ð T™ Ðwhich€is€surely€the€best€we€can€expect€of€propositions€whose€meanings€are€murky.€€€For€how€can€a€statementÐ ]¢ Ðbe€impeccably€true€€if€some€of€its€most€salient€concepts€are€vague?€€No€recognized€epistemic€principles€allowÐ f« Ðthat,€at€least€not€for€vagary€to€be€pervasive€in€beliefs€secure€enough€to€qualify€as€hard„core€knowledge.€€YetÐ o´ Ðfor€the€most€part,€occasional€legal€conflicts€notwithstanding,€we€live€comfortably€with€words€with€flex€in€theirÐ x½ Ðmeanings,€and€it€would€be€nice€to€have€some€philosophically€articulate€€understanding€of€€how€this€works€forÐ Æ Ðus.€€I€can€only€hint€at€that€here€(beyond€which€I€could€advance€only€a€little€even€were€space€no€problem),€butÐ ŠÏ Ðwould€like€to€offer€some€start„up€considerations€that€invite€furtherance.€€Ð “Ø ÐÓ  Óà Ê àà " àà z àà Ò àà * àà ‚ àà Ú àà 2 àà Š àà â àÌÐ ¥ê Ðà  à(A)€€The€Ubiquity€of€Vagueness€and€its€IlkÐ ®ó ÐÓ  ÓÓB+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!ÜÜ‹Xù!BÓÐ · ü Ðà Ê àà r àTo€begin,€a€few€examples€will€remind€you€how€universal€are€semantic€Ô_ÔsuboptimalitiesÔ_Ô€in€the€languageÐ À! Ðwe€live..€€Consider€how€you€conceive€of€what€is€most€immediately€foreground€in€your€own€life,€starting€withÐ É" Ðaspects€of€your€physical€body.€€€Are€you€sure€of€just€what€that€comprises€and,€if€not,€do€you€think€that€whenÐ Ò#  Ðyou€say€or€think€"my€body"€(henceforth€"òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó"€here)€this€concept€nevertheless€picks€out€a€precise€referent?€Ð Û$ !  ÐAre€your€fingernails,€or€the€dirt€under€them,€or€your€body€hair,€or€your€workout€perspiration€part€of€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó?€€AndÐ ä%)"! Ðif€so€for€some€portions€thereof€that€are€subsequently€detached€by€clipping/cleaning/cutting/wiping,€are€thoseÐ í&2#" Ðstill€parts€of€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó?€€If€not,€at€what€precise€stage€of€the€removal€process€do€they€become€not€so?€€(MereÐ ö';$# Ðseparation€doesn't€suffice,€at€least€not€in€my€personal€understanding€of€English:€€If€my€car,€or€dishwasher,€orÐ ÿ(D%$ Ðcomputer€is€partly€disassembled€for€cleaning€or€repairs,€I€still€consider€the€detachments€as€part€of€my€car,€etc.,Ð *M&% Ðprior€to€reassembly€albeit€that€raises€the€question,€if€a€defective€part€is€replaced,€when€during€disposal€doesÐ +V'& Ðthe€old€part€lose€that€status?)€€And€does€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó€include€everything€within€the€volume€of€space€enclosed€by€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó'sÐ ,_(' Ðskin,€in€particular€everything€in€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó's€digestive€tract?€€(Some€or€all€of€that€can€be€excluded€on€grounds€that,Ð #-h)( Ðtopographically,€it€is€in€the€hole€of€a€torus;€but€what€say€you€if€you€think€that€closing€the€aperture€at€each€endÐ ,.q*) Ðchanges€the€topography?)€€And€if€an€accident€or€surgical€contrivance€has€left€a€bit€of€metal€embedded€in€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó'sÐ 5/z+* Ðinterior€tissue,€is€this€perforce€a€part€of€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó€or€might€that€depend€on€how€long€it€has€been€there€and€theÐ >0ƒ,+ Ðcircumstances€of€its€implantation?€€These€examples€may€well€seem€trivial€to€you,€and€indeed€they€should€ifÐ G1Œ-, ÐÑfÏL-Ñâ fâÑ ,Ñâ fâÑ  Ñyou€mistake€me€to€be€protesting€them.€€Quite€the€opposite:€Vagaries€like€these€are€to€our€use€of€language€as€Ð » Ðlubricants€are€to€the€precision€machinery€whose€bearings€they€keep€from€seizure.€€€What€we€want€is€not€toÐ Ä  Ðexpunge€them€but€to€better€understand€their€semantics€(theory)€and€€management€(practice).Ð Í ÐÓ  ÓÐ Ö ÐÓ  ÓAmbiguity€and€vagary€are€just€as€rife€in€the€predicates€we€ascribe€to€things€in€hypotheses€and€dataÐ ß$ Ðstatements.€€I'll€give€only€one€example€here,€but€volunteer€to€exhibit€the€fuzz€in€any€other€established€EnglishÐ è- Ðpredicate€on€which€you€challenge€me€if€you€genuinely€can't€see€this€yourself€without€help.€€Were€you€toÐ ñ 6 Ðcomply€with€request€for€a€description€of€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó,€you€would€surely€need€little€prompting€to€appreciate€howÐ ú ? Ðimprecise€is€your€identification€of€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó's€skin€color,€flabbiness,€hairstyle,€facial€symmetry,€slouch€and€their€ilk.€Ð  H ÐSo€let's€consider€a€feature€that€we€Ô_ÔstandardlyÔ_Ô€measure,€say€Height.€€Informally,€we€describe€the€alternatives€byÐ  Q  Ð'tall',€'medium',€'short',€which€we€can€refine€with€'extremely',€'very',€'somewhat',€'mildly',€'sort„of',€and€otherÐ Z  Ðtweak„adjectives.€€But€when€wanting€to€grade€height€alternatives€€more€finely€than€this,€we€now€know€how€toÐ c  Ðquantify€those€in€terms€of€an€elective€measurement€unit.€€Not€wanting€to€belabor€this,€I€shall€assume€that€youÐ 'l  Ðhave€some€sense€of€what€it€means€to€say€that€two€points€in€space€at€a€given€time€are€òòróó€centimeters€apart,€whereÐ 0u  Ðyour€òòróó„concept€professedly€names€a€real€number.€€(There's€a€lot€of€theory€embedded€therein,€but€that's€true€ofÐ 9~ Ðall€our€Ô_ÔverbalizableÔ_Ô€concepts.)€€And€let's€agree€that€a€person's€height„in„cm.€is€the€straight€distance€inÐ B‡ Ðcentimeters€between€two€points€on€the€periphery€of€that€person.€€But€which€two€points€are€those?€€Can€weÐ K Ðdefine€them€in€a€way€that€unambiguously€identifies€their€locations€on€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó€and€anyone€else€we€consider€to€haveÐ T™ Ðheight€at€the€times€he/she/it€has€it?€€For€example,€do€the€places€at€which€a€measuring€setup€such€as€aÐ ]¢ Ðphysician's€height€slide€touch€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó€suffice€to€identify€these€points?€€Not€so€for€several€reasons.€€First,€if€theÐ f« Ðcontact€points€are€at€the€outer€edges€of€sole€callus€and€head€hair,€we€may€not€want€to€include€the€span€of€thoseÐ o´ Ðbody€parts€in€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó's€height.€€Secondly,€there€will€generally€be€many€simultaneous€contact€points€and€we€need€toÐ x½ Ðdefine€which€pair€to€pick.€€(Can€do,€but€that€component€of€ambiguity€persists€until€then.)€€Most€importantly,Ð Æ Ðmeasuring€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó's€height€has€posture€requirements:€€Spine€must€be€vertically€straight€so€far€as€feasible;€no€tip„Ð ŠÏ Ðtoeing€or€arm€raising;€and€head€angle,€unless€standardized€in€some€way€I€suspect€has€never€been€discussedÐ “Ø Ðmuch€less€agreed,€puts€additional€chanciness€into€what€distance€between€which€contact€points€is€selected.€Ð œá ÐWhat€these€considerations€show€is€that€òòÔ_ÔmbÔ_Ôóó's€height€is€actually€a€disposition€to€yield€one€or€another€lengthÐ ¥ê Ðmeasurement€depending€on€circumstances;€and€the€concept's€ambiguity€lies€foremostly€in€our€failure€to€sayÐ ®ó Ðprecisely€what€the€conditions€are€under€which€the€distance€between€selected€points€on€someone's€body€surfaceÐ · ü Ðis€that€person's€height.€€(And€youððre€right€to€think€that€this€uncertainty€is€utterly€inconsequential€under€mostÐ À! Ðcircumstances.€€Yet€consider€the€heartache€and€lawsuit€that€might€ensue€from€failing€by€a€barely€discernableÐ É" Ðmargin€the€minimum€height€requirement€for€a€job€or€privilege€sought€by€€a€strongly€motivated€applicant.)Ð Ò#  ÐÑ  ÑÐ Û$ !  ÐBut,€you€may€challenge,€don't€at€least€some€of€our€predicates,€for€example€those€of€form€'the€distanceÐ ä%)"! Ðbetween€__€and€__€is€òòd„unitsóó',€wherein€'òòdóó'€and€'òòunitsóó'€respectively€identify€a€real€number€and€unit€ofÐ í&2#" Ðmeasurement,€designate€their€target€attributes€exactly€even€if€most€distances€(e.g.€ones€corresponding€to€anÐ ö';$# Ðirrational€number€of€scale€units)€can€be€conceived€only€approximately?€€I€can't€dismiss€this€possibilityÐ ÿ(D%$ Ðgenerically;€but€if€someone€can€give€convincing€examples,€distance€measurements€won't€be€among€them.€Ð *M&% ÐDetails€on€this€are€impractical€here,€but€note€these€three€points:€€First,€the€two€arguments€of€a€distance„Ð +V'& Ðbetween€predication€are€primarily€òòpointsóó€in€space„time€(though€we€can€generalize€to€spatially€extendedÐ ,_(' Ðobjects€by€stipulating,€say,€that€the€distance€between€two€wholes€is€their€nearest„points€separation);€and€weÐ #-h)( Ðare€never€(or€scarcely€ever?)€able€to€identify€either€of€these€points€or€point„aggregates€exactly€whenÐ ,.q*) Ðpredicating€a€distance„between€of€them.€€So€even€if€some€distance€predicates€have€precise€Ô_ÔdesignataÔ_Ô€inÐ 5/z+* ÐÔ_ÔspacetimeÔ_Ô€reality,€we€can€never€(or€scarcely€ever?)€make€exactly€true€assertions€with€them.€€Moreover,€ourÐ >0ƒ,+ Ðnotion€of€distances€among€points€in€space/time€proves€under€analysis€to€be€deeply€theoretical€evenÐ » ÐÔ_ÔcommonsensicallyÔ_Ô,€not€to€mention€modern€physics€whose€more€advanced€conceptions€thereof€don't€translateÐ Ä  Ðinto€Ô_ÔfolkspeakÔ_Ô€very€well.€Either€way,€counting€ð ðunitsðð€of€distance€„„€inches,€meters,€miles,€etc.€„„€presupposesÐ Í Ðthat€we€have€€a€concept€of€what€it€is€for€two€points€in€space„time€to€have€exactly€the€same€separation€as€twoÐ Ö Ðother€points,€as€well€as€awareness€of€some€specific€pair€of€points€whose€separation€is€the€standard€for€suchÐ ß$ Ðcomparisons.€€I€venture€that€you€will€have€trouble€persuading€yourself€that€either€of€these€notions€isÐ è- Ðcompletely€clear€to€you.Ð ñ 6 ÐÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÐ ú ? Ðà  à(B)€€Conceptual€Ô_ÔinexactitudesÔ_ÔÐ  H ÐÑ  ÑÐ  Q  ÐÑ  ÑÓ  ÓAmbiguity,€vagueness€and€imprecision,€the€highest€grades€of€conceptual€imperfection€before€thatÐ Z  Ðslumps€into€obscurity€and€muddle,€come€in€many€variants€that€overlap€and€often€co„occur.€€And€to€this€list€ofÐ c  Ðfamiliar€conceptual€Ô_ÔfuzziesÔ_Ô,€I€shall€append€another€of€considerable€importance€but€not€heretofore€adequatelyÐ 'l  Ðrecognized,€namely,€multiple€reference.€€To€distinguish€among€these,€consider€some€examples:€Ôy©î 0u ÔÐ ©î  ÐÓ  ÓÓT Ó[a]€My€weight€[at€this€very€moment]€is€exactly€210.72864€lbs.€Ð ²÷ Ð[òòbóó]€My€present€weight€is€roughly€(approximately,€nearly,€almost)€211€lbs.Ð K ÐÑ  Ñ[òòcóó]€My€present€weight€is€between€210.0€lbs.€and€211.0€lbs.Ð ZŸ Ð[òòdóó]€Last€month€it€was€217.Ð ®ó Ð[òòeóó]€My€present€weight€is€exactly€five€pounds€less€than€my€brother's.Ôy{ÀGÔÐ {À ÐOnce€we€agree€on€a€referent€for€the€1òòstóó„person€pronoun€therein€(how€that€is€fixed€is€irrelevant)€,Ð Ï Ðassertion€[òòaóó],€though€untrue,€is€about€as€precise€as€we€ever€get€in€everyday€life.€€But€if€its€square„bracketedÐ #h Ðqualifier€(thereafter€simply€'present')€were€omitted,€(òòaóó)€would€be€either€elliptic€or€vague€(actually,€both)Ð w¼ Ðaccording€to€how€tight€a€temporal€window€its€present€tense€takes€from€context.€€(Also,€its€numeric€precisionÐ Ë Ðcannot€expunge€the€modest€inexactitude€in€ððlb.')€In€contrast,€[òòbóó]€is€vague€under€all€the€listed€choices€for€itsÐ d Ðadverb€which,€however,€differ€in€degree€of€vagueness:€"Roughly"€is€more€diffuse€than€"nearly"€whileÐ s ¸ Ð"almost"€is€even€less€vague€than€"nearly",€in€part€because€it€is€rather€precisely€one„sided€„„€declaringÐ Ç!  Ðsomething€to€be€almost€someway€generally€implies€that€it€falls€a€little€short.€€In€contrast,€[òòcóó]€is€no€more€vagueÐ #` Ðor€ambiguous€than€[òòaóó]€but€is€less€precise,€showing€that€although€vagaries€are€imprecise,€imprecisions€needn'tÐ o$´  Ðbe€vague.€Ð Ã%" ÐThough€not€as€idiomatic€as€might€be€preferred,€[òòdóó]€illustrates€several€facets€of€conceptual€obscurity.€Ð '\# ÐMost€obvious€is€its€omission€of€a€measurement€unit€and€the€attribute€being€quantified.€€When€context€makesÐ k(°$ Ðnear„certain€that€'it'€in€this€utterance€abbreviates,€say,€'my€weight€in€pounds',€[òòdóó]€is€elliptic.€€Otherwise,€it€isÐ ¿)& Ðvague€and/or€ambiguous€according€to€the€alternative€clarifications€suggested€by€context.€€If€we€have€beenÐ +X'  Ðdiscussing€my€dietary€purchases€and€weight„control€workouts,€you€might€interpret€the€numeral€in€[òòdóó]€asÐ g,¬(! ÐÔ_ÔambiguatingÔ_Ô€over€dollars€spent,€weight€in€pounds,€and€miles€on€treadmill.€€And€were€I€to€indicate€that€I€meantÐ »-*" Ðdietary€purchase,€that€would€still€leave€vagueness€in€this€category's€definition,€and€imprecision€in€how€myÐ /T+# Ð$217€was€distributed€over€what€items€of€this€kind.€[òòdóó]€is€also€vague€in€its€temporal„location€reference€unlessÐ » Ðcontext€supplies€precise€Ô_ÔchronometricÔ_Ô€boundaries€for€that€and,€if€those€pick€the€entire€month€or€an€appreciableÐ T Ðsubinterval€thereof,€how€the€single€number€217€which,€say,€€I€now€clarify€is€weight€in€pounds€is€extractedÐ c¨ Ðfrom€my€weight€trajectory€over€that€period.€€Were€I€to€clarify€by€reporting€that€217€is€my€average€weight€inÐ ·ü Ðpounds€over€a€morning€and€evening€weighing€each€day,€this€vagueness€would€shrink€to€a€modest€ambiguityÐ  P Ðthat€finally€reduces€to€maximally€feasible€precision€if€I€further€pass€on€what€technical€version€of€"average"€IÐ _ ¤ Ðused€and€how€it€was€calculated.Ð ³ ø ÐFinally,€[òòeóó]€illustrates€a€genus€of€semantic€Ô_ÔsuboptimalityÔ_Ô€still€not€adequately€comprehended€even€byÐ  L  Ðtechnical€philosophy€of€language,€though€Russell's€theory€of€definite€descriptions€made€it€a€serious€analyticÐ [   Ðchallenge€which€rightly€continues€to€attract€philosophic€attention.€€Grammatically,€ððmy€brother'sðð€in€[òòeóó]€isÐ ¯ô  Ðelliptic€for€ððmy€brother's€present€weight€in€lbs.ðð,€which€is€a€nominal€whose€job€is€to€designate€a€uniqueÐ H  Ðattribute€of€a€unique€object€designated€by€'my€brother€at€present'.€€Presuming€'brother€of'€to€be€ideally€preciseÐ Wœ  Ð(that€it's€not€doesn't€matter€here),€it€is€entirely€possible,€even€if€unlikely,€that€[òòeóó]€is€true€at€least€asÐ «ð  Ðcommonsense€understands€"true"€so€long€as€I€do€in€fact€have€just€one€brother.€€But€what€if,€unknown€to€me,€IÐ ÿD  Ðactually€have€no€brother€(he€was€incinerated€just€hours€ago€in€a€horrendous€accident),€or€more€than€one€(I'veÐ S˜ Ðnever€learned€of€my€adolescent€parents'€pre„marriage€son€given€up€for€adoption)?€€There€seems€to€be€generalÐ §ì Ðphilosophy„of„language€agreement€that€[òòeóó]€cannot€be€true€absent€a€corporeal€brother,€though€whether€lackÐ û@ Ðthereof€makes€[òòeóó]€semantically€ill„formed€or€well„Ô_ÔformedlyÔ_Ô€false€is€still€controversial.€€(I€have€argued€for€theÐ O” Ðlatter€in€Ô_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€1972.)€€More€challenging€is€to€clarify€[òòeóó]'s€semantic€status€when€several€things€„„€call€theÐ £è Ðset€of€these€'ò òBsó ó'€„„€would€each€fully€qualify€as€the€referent€of€'my€brother€at€present'€„„€abbreviate€thisÐ ÷< Ðexpression€as€'ò òBmpó ó'€„„€were€it€not€for€the€others,€equally€qualified,€in€ò òBsó ó.€€Several€alternative€possibilities€forÐ K Ðò òBmpó ó's€semantic€relation€to€ò òBsó ó€merit€consideration:ÔµT ™ŸäÔÐ T ™ ÐÓ Ì÷XÓÓ  Ó€à0 r àà  à[òòÔ_ÔiÔ_Ôóó]€Since€a€designating€expression's€referent€must€be€unique,€ò òBmpó ó€perforce€has€no€referent€in€this€case€unlessÐ ¨!í Ðthis€concept€can€be€augmented€by€something€that€eliminates€all€but€one€of€its€otherwise€qualifiedÐ ü"A Ðreferents;€and€until€then€[òòeóó]€has€the€same€truth„status€as€it€would€have€were€its€defining€predicate€toÐ P$•  Ðhave€no€instances.ÔµY&ž"¤%é!ÔÐY&ž"r¾#r¾# Ðà0 r àà  à[òòiióó]€ò òBmpó ó€may€signify€ò òBsó ó€as€name€of€the€class,€or€alternatively,€shattering€our€classic€uniqueness„of„referenceÐ ­'ò# Ðposit,€may€simultaneously€designate€each€object€in€ò òBsó ó.Ôµ¶)û%)F%Ôж)û%r¾#r¾# ÐÓ ,ÓÓE.4Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤Í ÜÜ‹Xù!EÓà0 r àà  à[òòiiióó]€Some€random€process€might€select€one€winner€from€the€set€of€entities€qualified€to€be€ò òBmpó ó's€referent.€Ð  +O' ÐThis€could€be€a€new€pick€each€time€its€context€of€usage€changes,€comparable€to€our€use€ofÐ ^,£( Ðdemonstratives,€or€fixation€of€an€initial€random€pick€as€proposed€by€at€least€one€major„leagueÐ ²-÷) Ðlogician€in€recent€times€(cf.€Ô_ÔRozeboomÔ_Ô,€1962,€for€reference).€Ôµ»/,/K+Ôл/,r’"r’" Ðà0 r àà  à[òòióóv]€Contrary€to€traditional€philosophy„of„language€presuppositions,€intentional„Ô_ÔaboutnessÔ_Ô€relations€mayÐ » Ðin€general€be€many„many€and€graded.€€In€particular,€perhaps€a€given€concept€can€have€multipleÐ T Ðreferents€under€varied€degrees€or€qualities€of€context„sensitive€representational€connection.€Ð c¨ ÐMultiple€reference€must€not€be€confused€with€ambiguity.€€The€latter€is€a€complication€ofÐ ·ü Ðword/meaning€evocations;€multiple€reference€is€complexity€in€how€meanings€may€relate€to€whatÐ  P Ðthey€are€about.ÔÙ8 }_ ¤ÔÐ8 }r’"r’" ÐÓ ,ÓÓH+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ù!4Ü‚,Œ ‰XÍ HÓÓTTÓProspect€[òòÔ_ÔiÔ_Ôóó],€philosophic€orthodoxy,€is€far€too€simplistic€to€capture€the€nuances€of€semantic€reality;€why€[òòiióó]Ð Œ Ñ Ðdoesn't€work€I'll€leave€as€a€easy€exercise€for€you€though€its€second€version€has€some€merit€as€an€idealizedÐ à %  Ðprecursor€of€[òòivóó].€And€[òòiiióó]€is€too€magical€to€take€seriously,€though€the€comparison€to€demonstratives€meritsÐ 4y  Ðdiscussion€before€dismissal.€€But€[òòivóó]€is€a€framework€within€which€a€realistic€theory€of€semantics€has€room€toÐ ˆÍ  Ðgrow,€and€has€already€been€put€into€play€by€the€open„concept/implicit„definition€construal€of€theoreticalÐ Ü!  Ðconcepts€accepted€by€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô€and€most(?)€philosophers€of€science€today.€€According€to€this€outlook,€if€I€haveÐ 0u  Ðseveral€brothers€but€just€one€whose€weight€exceeds€mine€by€exactly€five€lbs.,€then€that€one€is€the€referent€ofÐ „É  Ðò òBmpó ó€in€[òòeóó].€€Whether€more€generally€it€might€designate€just€the€one€whose€weight€exceeds€mine€closest€to€theÐ Ø  Ðstated€difference,€or€multiply€designate€each€of€my€brothers€to€a€degree€commensurate€with€our€weight„Ð ,q Ðdifference's€proximity€to€the€contrast€claimed,€merits€thoughtful€semantic„theoretic€contemplation.€€SuchÐ €Å Ðunshackling€of€reference€should€also€yield€graded€qualities€of€proximal€truth€albeit,€like€Moses€in€theÐ Ô Ðwilderness,€I€can€only€lead€toward€that€promised€land€without€expectation€that€I€myself€will€ever€help€toÐ (m Ðdomesticate€it.€€(I€do,€however,€have€some€salient€route€maps€that€I€would€proffer€were€circumstances€toÐ |Á Ðpermit.)€€€€Ð Ð ÐÐ $i ЀÔ_Ô{{Ô_Ô€A€once„planned€map€sketch€for€the€journey€may€still€be€added€here€should€any€expressed€interest€arise.€}}Ð x ½ ÐÌà r àMy€attempt€here€to€clarify€by€example€the€differences€among€traditionally€recognized€types€ofÐ  #e Ðsemantic€imprecision€would€be€poor€show€if€I€did€not€also€try€to€abstract€their€respective€natures.€€So€hereÐ t$¹  Ðgoes:€€In€first€approximation,€a€statement€òòSóó€is€"ambiguous"€in€some€linguistic€context€if€it€brings€severalÐ È% " ÐÔ_ÔverbalizableÔ_Ô€interpretations€(different€meanings)€to€mind€while€context€neither€picks€just€one€as€intendedÐ 'a# Ð(which€might€reclassify€òòSóóððs€occurrences€as€elliptic€here€rather€than€ambiguous)€nor€urges€that€òòSóó€be€construedÐ p(µ$ Ðas€their€disjunction.€€In€contrast,€òòSóó€is€"vague"€in€contexts€wherein€it€conveys€a€haze€of€indistinctly€manyÐ Ä) & Ðpropositional€alternatives,€more€than€can€be€explicitly€verbalized€but€similar€to€one€another€in€some€intuitiveÐ +]' Ðway,€so€that€òòSóó's€meaning€in€such€instances€seems€best€explicated€as€a€weighted€disjunction€over€these.€€(I€amÐ l,±( Ðfar€from€convinced€that€this€attempt€to€distinguish€"ambiguous"€from€"vague"€is€fully€adequate,€but€at€leastÐ À-* Ðit's€a€start.)€€As€for€imprecision,€this€is€not€just€semantic€blur€but€is€also€relative€to€linguistic€intent.€€MyÐ /Y+  ÐÑOP¸1Ñâ OâÑ  Ñâ OâÑ  Ñcharacterizing€the€interval€predication€in€[c]€above€as€imprecise€presumed€a€context€of€usage€calling€for€pointÐ » Ðinformation.€€But€it€would€be€as€precise€as€[òòaóó]€were€a€whole„number€interval€to€be€wanted.€€Actually,€it€isÐ T Ðsurprisingly€difficult€to€define€'precise'€precisely.€€In€essence,€a€sentence€òòÔ_ÔSóóòòaÔ_Ôóó€is€more€precise€than€sentence€òòSóóòòbóóÐ c¨ Ðwith€respect€to€a€topic/theme/aspect/concern/query€òòQóó€just€in€case€every€sentence€entailed€by€òòSóóòòbóó€and€just€aboutÐ ·ü ÐòòQóó€is€also€entailed€by€òòÔ_ÔSóóòòaÔ_Ôóó€but€not€conversely.€€But€I'm€not€able€to€make€precise€my€intuitions€on€what€it€is€for€aÐ  P Ðsentence€to€beòò€justóó€about€some€òòQóó.€€(Ô_ÔAboutnessÔ_Ô€I€can€corral,€but€tidy€boundaries€for€òòQóó€elude€me.)Ð _ ¤ Ðà r àAlthough€hard€sciences€generally€treat€semantic€Ô_ÔinexactitudesÔ_Ô€as€cognitive€Ô_ÔinferioritiesÔ_Ô€to€beÐ ³ ø Ðminimized€so€far€as€feasible,€the€four€varieties€just€Ô_ÔoverviewedÔ_Ô€differ€considerably€in€the€concept„Ð  L  Ðmanagement€demands€they€place€on€us.€€In€general,€an€imprecision€range€is€as€easy€to€specify€as€are€pointÐ [   Ðvalues€within€the€range€„„€which€is€to€say€not€that€these€are€trouble„free,€but€only€that€their€semanticÐ ¯ô  Ðproblems/imperfections€are€of€the€same€sort€and€degrees€of€severity€as€points.€€(Actually,€specifying€aÐ H  Ðmultidimensional€range€is€harder€than€just€naming€a€few€boundary€points,€but€usually€not€much€when€aÐ Wœ  Ðmultidimensional€enclosure€is€specified€by€parameters€in€a€few€well„behaved€algebraic€functions.)€€AndÐ «ð  Ðambiguities€are€routine€to€resolve€in€research€areas€whose€participants€are€willing€to€think€carefully€aboutÐ ÿD  Ðwhat€they€are€trying€to€say,€albeit€our€discipline€could€well€profit€from€some€training€in€concept€analysis.€€(It'sÐ S˜ Ða€pity€that€Ô_ÔMeehlÔ_Ô,€who€was€superb€at€this,€was€never€commissioned€to€work€up€educational€procedures€thatÐ §ì Ðcould€teach€students€to€appreciate€and€maybe€even€practice€this€important€intellectual€skill.)Ð û@ Ðà r àVagaries,€on€the€other€hand,€tend€to€work€themselves€out€as€need€arises.€€But€tightening€looseÐ O” Ðconcepts€generally€comes€at€a€price€in€establishing€consensual€refinements€and€contriving€to€detect€and€reportÐ £è Ðthose€accurately.€€(Imagine€the€joy€and€compliance€that€would€ensue€if€government€regulations€were€toÐ ÷< Ðmandate€that€Height€in€physicians'€medical€records€be€standardized€on€its€finer€Ô_ÔindeterminaciesÔ_Ô€cited€above.)€Ð K ÐSo€in€general,€exactitude€should€not€be€obsessed€much€beyond€current€needs,€practical€or€theoretical,€albeitÐ Ÿä Ðwith€different€locutions€provided€for€different€levels€of€wanted€exactitude€such€as€already€carried€to€a€high€artÐ ó 8 Ðin€our€technical€language€for€quantitative€measurement.€€And€as€technical€discriminations€become€honed,Ð G"Œ Ðcommonsense€vagaries€evolve€into€the€elective€imprecision€of€precisely€bounded€intervals.€€(You€knew€thatÐ ›#à Ðalready,€of€course;€but€I€should€say€it€for€the€record.)Ð ï$4! Ðà r àAs€for€multiple€reference€by€open€concepts,€this€is€not€an€avoidable€Ô_ÔsuboptimalityÔ_Ô€in€our€use€ofÐ C&ˆ" Ðlanguage€but€an€inherent€consequence€of€how€the€world€and€our€knowledge€of€it€works.€€Whatever€we€knowÐ —'Ü# Ðonly€through€its€discernable€effects€on€our€sensory€surround€cannot€be€cognitively€distinguished€from€otherÐ ë(0% Ðthings€that€have€those€same€effects€until€such€time€as€we€detect€and€conceptually€assimilate€additional€effectsÐ ?*„& Ðthat€differentiate€them.€€But€there€is€an€important€caution€to€take€from€this:€€When€developing€explanatoryÐ “+Ø' Ðtheories,€we€should€be€frugal€in€attributing€to€our€theory's€posited€source€entities€more€attributes€than€make€aÐ ç,,) Ðdifference€for€our€current€evidence€supporting€them.€€Excessive€fat€can€be€as€debilitating€to€a€theoryððsÐ ;.€*  Ðepistemic€health€as€it€is€to€a€theoristððs€physical€Ô_ÔwellbeingÔ_Ô