Money, lies, and replicability: On the need for empirically grounded experimental practices and interdisciplinary discourse
Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):433-444 (2001)
|Abstract||This response reinforces the major themes of our target article. The impact of key methodological variables should not be taken for granted. Rather, we suggest grounding experimental practices in empirical evidence. If no evidence is available, decisions about design and implementation ought to be subjected to systematic experimentation. In other words, we argue against empirically blind conventions and against methodological choices based on beliefs, habits, or rituals. Our approach will neither inhibit methodological diversity nor constrain experimental creativity. More likely, it will promote both goals.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128 - 135.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
Jan Sprenger (2009). Evidence and Experimental Design in Sequential Trials. Philosophy of Science 76 (5).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,434 of 731,329 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 731,329 )
How can I increase my downloads?