Rejoinder to Professor Teller
نویسندگان
چکیده
At the outset of his comments Professor Teller expresses disquiet at what seems to him my claiming to have a rule which is capable of automatically generating the hypothesis to be adopted when given nothing but the experimental data. Such a claim would indeed be quite preposterous since everybody knows that there are no clear-cut principles for the production of hypotheses, but that these are suggested by the imaginative insights of a high talent which conjectures without the aid of any rules of scientific discovery. Subsequently, he expresses the hope that I may not have had such a claim in mind. I have, of course, explicitly explained at considerable length that I wish to make a sharply different claim. I have been dealing with a situation where a hypothesis to account for all the observations had already been suggested by a scientist. But as soon as this is done, one can mechanically generate out of the suggested hypothesis infinitely many parasitic rival hypotheses by the simple method I have described. The principle of maximum parsimony determines which one to adopt among these hypotheses. But let me come to the truly surprising part of Professor Teller's paper, which is his expression of puzzlement by what is meant by extraneous evidence. He says: "[Wjhat is to count as genuine evidence and what extraneous to the evidence? Why should not the outcome of drawing lots or the word of a specially designated person (Professor Schlesinger's examples of extraneous information) simply count as part of the evidence to be used in evaluating hypotheses?" (p. 344) Although I find it almost impossible to believe that Professor Teller should not himself be able to answer this question, let me briefly reply: When we are, for example, searching for a hypothesis correlating the time traveled by a particle and the distance covered during that time, then the fact that in three seconds the particle traveled four feet I take as genuine evidence supporting the hypothesis which shall be admitted as a candi-
منابع مشابه
Commentaries and Rejoinder to “Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study”
Vol. XLVI (February 2009), 14–24 14 © 2009, American Marketing Association ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) *Scott A. Huettel is Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience (e-mail: scott.huettel@duke. edu), and John W. Payne is Joseph J. Ruvane Jr. Professor of Management and Marketing, Fuqua School of Business (e-mail: [email protected]),...
متن کاملRejoinder to 'multivariate functional outlier detection'
First of all we would like to thank the editor, Professor Andrea Cerioli, for inviting us to submit our work and for requesting comments from some esteemed colleagues. We were surprised by the number of invited comments and grateful to their contributing authors, all of whom raised important points and/or offered valuable suggestions. We are happy for the opportunity to rejoin the discussion. R...
متن کاملTheory and History in Marketing: Reply
∗ From Managerial and Decision Economics, 6:3, September 1985, 186–188. See J. H. Runde, “Theory and History in Marketing: a Comment,” Ibid., 183-85, which preceded this Reply, and Runde, “Theory and History in Marketing: Rejoinder,” Ibid., 189-90, which followed. In essence, my article ‘Theory and History in Marketing' (Kirkpatrick, 1983), which Professor Runde now challenges, states the follo...
متن کاملScience as a Culture in Culture with Deep - Structure Across Empirical Studies in
In his rejoinder to my article, “The construction of culture-inclusive theories by multiple philosophical paradigms” (2013), Professor Allwood advocates for the advantages of an empirically oriented cultural concept in indigenous psychologies. Allwood’s advocacy reveals an insistence on an empiricist research orientation. Empiricists regard the collection of empirical facts as the ultimate goal...
متن کاملRejoinder: On Professor McCutcheon’s (Un)Critical Caretaking
NOT EVERYTHING THAT Russell McCutcheon wrote about my article is inaccurate or simply false, but much of it is. Bolstered by his mis-reading of broad swaths of the article, Professor McCutcheon has done little more than insist, “No, this is not what I meant at all!” Alas, as Michel Foucault (and so many others) has pointed out, an author is typically the last to dictate the meaning of his or he...
متن کامل