{"title":"证伪与实体假设理论的保护带","authors":"Steven C Hayes","doi":"10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":84177,"journal":{"name":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"Pages 35-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Falsification and the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories\",\"authors\":\"Steven C Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":84177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 35-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.02.004\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184904000058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied & preventive psychology : journal of the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962184904000058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Falsification and the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories
Meehl’s article is a contradiction. In every area, he recognizes some of what is wrong and then advocates a course that will produce more of the same. He sees the problem with falsification and in essence advocates for its alternative, verification, but falsely claims this strategy is still falsification and is useful when there is a loose link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions. He acknowledges the proven value of tightening the link between theories and their auxiliaries and conditions, but rejects that course because it does not apply to his preferred theories. Twenty-five years later there is even more “slow progress” to ponder. It is time to dismantle the protective belt surrounding entity-postulating theories that Meehl’s reasoning has helped to create.