Positivism, Postmodernism, and Dichotomizing the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: Can the Philosophy of Science Help Researchers Think about How to Classify Handedness?

Abstract

Objective: This paper examines the classification of handedness using the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI) through the lenses of P. W. Bridgman's operationalism and Paul Feyerabend's methodological anarchism. It addresses the philosophical debate surrounding the dichotomization of EHI scores into consistent and inconsistent handers versus alternative systems, such as tripartite classifications (Left, Right, Mixed) or continuous scoring. Method: A conceptual analysis was conducted to compare dichotomized, categorical, and continuous approaches to EHI data. The evaluation is grounded in operationalist and methodologically pluralistic frameworks to assess the legitimacy and utility of each classification system. Results: Although some researchers have questioned the appropriateness of dichotomizing the EHI, this approach has consistently produced empirically interesting and replicable findings. Dichotomization can be justified both as an operationally valid procedure and as consistent with methodological pluralism, making it a legitimate and useful analytic option. Conclusions: Clarity in handedness classification remains essential. Multiple frameworks may yield valuable but distinct insights across psychological subdisciplines. Encouraging methodological plurality and incorporating diverse handedness measures can enhance the reliability, interpretability, and applicability of findings in research on individual differences and cognitive variables related to handedness.