Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:35:40.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Testability of Psychological Generalizations (Psychological Testability)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

David K. Henderson
David K. Henderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy Memphis State University
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rosenberg argues that intentional generalizations in the human sciences cannot be law-like because they are not amenable to significant empirical refinement. This irrefinability is said to result from the principle that supposedly controls in intentional explanation also serving as the standard for successful interpretation. The only credible evidence bearing on such a principle would then need conform to it. I argue that psychological generalizations are refinable and can be nomic. I show how empirical refinement of psychological generalizations is possible by considering concrete cases. A sufficiently detailed view of the role of psychological generalizations in interpretation allows us to find in psychological investigations instances of bootstrap testing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 586 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The author is indebted to Alexander Rosenberg, Terry Horgn, and John Tienson for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Davidson, D. ([1970] 1980a), “Mental Events”, in D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 207–225.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. ([1974] 1980b), “Psychology as Philosophy”, in D. Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 229–244.Google Scholar
F⊘llesdal, D. (1986), “The Status of Rationality Assumptions in Interpretation and in the Explanation of Actions”, in E. LePore and B. McLaughlin (eds.), Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 311–323.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973), “Religion as a Cultural System”, in C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures; Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, pp. 87–125.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, D. (1987a), “The Principle of Charity and the Problem of Irrationality (Translation and the Problem of Irrationality)”, Synthese 73: 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. (1987b), “Winch and the Constraints on Interpretation: Versions of the Principle of Charity”, Southern Journal of Philosophy 25: 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. (1988), “Wittgenstein's Descriptivist Approach to Understanding: Is There a Place for Explanation in Interpretive Accounts?” Dialectica 42: 105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, D. (1989), “The Role and Limitations of Rationalizing Explanation in the Social Sciences”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 19: 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1972), “Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness”, Cognitive Psychology 3: 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. and Ross, L. (1980), Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings in Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1987), “Indeterminacy of Translation Again”, Journal of Philosophy 84: 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, T. (1986), Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-neutrino Detection. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1985), “Davidson's Unintended Attack on Psychology”, in E. LePore and B. McLaughlin (eds.), Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 399–407.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1988), Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1982), “The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy”, Philosophy of Science 49: 485–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1975), “A Critique of Expected Utility Theory: Descriptive and Normative Considerations”, Erkenntnis 9: 163–173.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1971), “Belief in the Law of Small Numbers”, Psychological Bulletin 76: 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases”, Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Fraassen, B. (1983), “Theory Comparison and Relevant Evidence”, in J. Earman (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 10, Testing Scientific Theories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (1986), “Bootstrapping in the Un-Natural Sciences: Archaeological Theory Testing”, in A. Fine and P. Machamer (eds.), PSA 1986, vol. 1, pp. 314–321.Google Scholar