Metanauka poznawcza: nowe podejście do badania teorii
Marcin Miłkowski
Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologiihttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-5742
Abstrakt
W artykule przedstawiono argumentację na rzecz większego nacisku na teoretyzowanie w badaniach naukowych w świetle trwającego kryzysu wiarygodności w psychologii. Chociaż istotną rolę odgrywają wiarygodne dowody eksperymentalne, prerejestracja, rygor metodologiczny i nowe podejścia obliczeniowe do modelowania, postęp naukowy opiera się również na właściwie funkcjonujących teoriach. Roli teoretyzowania w psychologii nie rozumiemy jednak wystarczająco, a to może prowadzić do kolejnych kryzysów. Teorie nie powinny być postrzegane jako czcze spekulacje czy proste uogólnienia indukcyjne.
W tym kontekście autor wprowadza podejście zwane „metanauką poznawczą”, mające badać czynności i wytwory oceny praktyki naukowej. Badanie to ma przebiegać zarówno jakościowo, jak i ilościowo, poprzez analizę dyskursu naukowego z wykorzystaniem technik przetwarzania języka.
Teorie analizowane są jako artefakty poznawcze wspierające procesy poznania w nauce. Ta perspektywa ujawnia odmienne role różnych teorii, a badanie tych ról, wraz z ich epistemicznymi zaletami i wadami, pozwala uchwycić normy teoretyzowania. Autor wzywa do zmiany kultury badawczej, by odpowiednio uwzględniano różnorodne zastosowania odmiennych typów teorii i systematycznie wspierano postęp naukowy.
Słowa kluczowe:
kryzys teoretyczny, metanauka poznawcza, artefakt poznawczy, wartość teoretyczna, kryteria epistemiczneBibliografia
Afeltowicz, Ł., Wachowski, W. (2015). How Far we Can Go Without Looking Under the Skin: The Bounds of Cognitive Science. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 40(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/slgr-2015-0005
Crossref
Google Scholar
Almaatouq, A., Griffiths, T. L., Suchow, J. W., Whiting, M. E., Evans, J., Watts, D. J. (2022). Beyond Playing 20 Questions with Nature: Integrative Experiment Design in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002874
Crossref
Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (wyd. 3). American Psychiatric Association. Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (2007). How Can the Mind Occur in the Physical Universe? Oxford University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Aronova, E., Oertzen, C. von, Sepkoski, D. (red.). (2017). Data histories. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Autzen, B. (2021). Is the replication crisis a base-rate fallacy? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 42(5), 233–243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09561-8
Crossref
Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature News, 533(7604), 452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a
Crossref
Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M. (2022). Ego Depletion is the Best Replicated Finding in All of Social Psychology. Scholarly Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 6(2), 686–688. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32474/SJPBS.2021.06.000234 Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2021). Understanding the Replication Crisis as a Base Rate Fallacy. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 72(4), 965–993. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy051
Crossref
Google Scholar
Boekel, W., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Belay, L., Verhagen, J., Brown, S., Forstmann, B. U. (2015). A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations. Cortex, 66, 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2014.11.019
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bogen, J., Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the Phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97(3), 303. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185445
Crossref
Google Scholar
Borsboom, D. (2008). Psychometric perspectives on diagnostic systems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(9), 1089–1108. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20503
Crossref
Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A., Kalis, A. (2018). Brain disorders? Not really… Why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17002266
Crossref
Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J. (2013). Network Analysis: An Integrative Approach to the Structure of Psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608
Crossref
Google Scholar
Botvinik-Nezer, R., Holzmeister, F., Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., […] Schonberg, T. (2020). Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature, 582(7810), 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bower, G. H. (1993). The fragmentation of psychology? American Psychologist, 48(8), 905–907. (1994-00003-001). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.8.905
Crossref
Google Scholar
Bringmann, L. F., Eronen, M. (2016). Heating up the measurement debate: What psychologists can learn from the history of physics. Theory & Psychology, 26(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315617253
Crossref
Google Scholar
Broadbent, A. (2018). Prediction, Understanding, and Medicine. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 43(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhy003
Crossref
Google Scholar
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cahalan, S. (2019). The Great Pretender. Grand Central Publishers. Google Scholar
Callebaut, W. (1993). Taking the naturalistic turn or how real philosophy of science is done. University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Callebaut, W. (2013). Naturalizing Theorizing: Beyond a Theory of Biological Theories. Biological Theory, 7(4), 413–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0122-2
Crossref
Google Scholar
Carsel, T., Demos, A. P., Motyl, M. (2018). Strong scientific theorizing is needed to improve replicability in psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, e123. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1800078X
Crossref
Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2017). VI—Operational Coherence as the Source of Truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 117(2), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/arisoc/aox004
Crossref
Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35(1), 26–58.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cooper, R. P., Shallice, T. (1995). Soar and the case for unified theories of cognition. Cognition, 55(2), 115–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)00644-Z
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cowan, N., Belletier, C., Doherty, J. M., Jaroslawska, A. J., Rhodes, S., Forsberg, A., […] Logie, R. H. (2020). How Do Scientific Views Change? Notes From an Extended Adversarial Collaboration. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 15(4), 1011–1025. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620906415
Crossref
Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the Brain: Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience. Oxford University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2009). Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 575–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080903238930
Crossref
Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (2000). “How does it work” versus “what are the laws?”: Two conceptions of psychological explanation. W: F. Keil i R. A. Wilson (red.), Explanation and Cognition (s. 117–145). MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dale, R., Dietrich, E., Chemero, A. (2009). Explanatory Pluralism in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 739–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01042.x
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dang, J. (2016). Commentary: A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion Effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01155
Crossref
Google Scholar
Del Pin, S. H., Skóra, Z., Sandberg, K., Overgaard, M., Wierzchoń, M. (2021). Comparing theories of consciousness: Why it matters and how to do it. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2021(2), niab019. https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niab019
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dellsén, F. (2020). The epistemic impact of theorizing: Generation bias implies evaluation bias. Philosophical Studies, 177(12), 3661–3678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01387-w
Crossref
Google Scholar
Di Nardo, P. A., O’Brien, G. T., Barlow, D. H., Waddell, M. T., Blanchard, E. B. (1983). Reliability of DSM-III Anxiety Disorder Categories Using a New Structured Interview. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40(10), 1070–1074. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1983.01790090032005
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., Gallogly, D. P. (1999). Computational analyses in cognitive neuroscience: In defense of biological implausibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212325
Crossref
Google Scholar
Erdin, H. O. (2021). Appraisal of certain methodologies in cognitive science based on Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes. Synthese, 199, 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02612-4
Crossref
Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I., Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The Theory Crisis in Psychology: How to Move Forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. J., Heene, M. (2012). A Vast Graveyard of Undead Theories: Publication Bias and Psychological Science’s Aversion to the Null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (1991). Heuristics and Biases in Theory Formation: On the Cognitive Processes of those Concerned with Cognitive Processes. Theory & Psychology, 1(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354391014002
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fiedler, K. (2017). What Constitutes Strong Psychological Science? The (Neglected) Role of Diagnosticity and A Priori Theorizing: Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616654458
Crossref
Google Scholar
Flis, I. (2019). Psychologists psychologizing scientific psychology: An epistemological reading of the replication crisis. Theory & Psychology, 29(2), 158–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319835322
Crossref
Google Scholar
Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K., Smaldino, P. E. (2022). Strategic ambiguity in the social sciences. Social Psychological Bulletin. https://www.psycharchives.org/en/item/e5bb9192-80a4-4ae4-9cda-5d144008196e
Crossref
Google Scholar
Fried, E. I. (2020). Lack of Theory Building and Testing Impedes Progress in The Factor and Network Literature. Psychological Inquiry, 31(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1853461
Crossref
Google Scholar
Frixione, M. (2001). Tractable competence. Minds and Machines, 379–397.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gaj, N. (2016). Unity and Fragmentation in Psychology: The Philosophical and Methodological Roots of the Discipline. Taylor, Francis Ltd.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Giere, R. N., Moffatt, B. (2003). Distributed Cognition: Where the Cognitive and the Social Merge. Social Studies of Science, 33(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127030332017
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology. Psychological Review, 98(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.254
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1992). Discovery in Cognitive Psychology: New Tools Inspire New Theories. Science in Context, 5(2), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889700001216
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Surrogates for Theories. Theory & Psychology, 8(2), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354398082006
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gitelman, L. (red.). (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. The MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Goertzen, J. R. (2008). On the Possibility of Unification: The Reality and Nature of the Crisis in Psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 829–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308097260
Crossref
Google Scholar
Gorelick, R. (2011). What is theory? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4033/iee.2011.4.1.c
Crossref
Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G. (2012). There Is Nothing So Theoretical as a Good Method: Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611434210
Crossref
Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93(2), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.216
Crossref
Google Scholar
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., […] Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion Effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652873
Crossref
Google Scholar
Hensel, W. M. (2020). Double trouble? The communication dimension of the reproducibility crisis in experimental psychology and neuroscience. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(3), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-020-00317-6
Crossref
Google Scholar
Hensel, W. M., Miłkowski, M., Nowakowski, P. (2022). Without more theory, psychology will be a headless rider. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000212
Crossref
Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Hughes, B. M. (2018). Psychology in crisis. Palgrave. Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Crossref
Google Scholar
Irvine, E. (2021). The Role of Replication Studies in Theory Building. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 844–853. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970558
Crossref
Google Scholar
Isaac, A. M. C. (2019). Epistemic Loops and Measurement Realism. Philosophy of Science, 86(5), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1086/705476
Crossref
Google Scholar
Ivani, S. (2019). What we (should) talk about when we talk about fruitfulness. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-018-0231-7
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kawa, S., Giordano, J. (2012). A brief historicity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Issues and implications for the future of psychiatric canon and practice. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine: PEHM, 7, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-7-2
Crossref
Google Scholar
Keas, M. N. (2018). Systematizing the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 195(6), 2761–2793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1355-6
Crossref
Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., […] Suchomel, V. (2014). The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1, 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9
Crossref
Google Scholar
Klein, S. B. (2014). What can recent replication failures tell us about the theoretical commitments of psychology? Theory & Psychology, 24(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354314529616
Crossref
Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1953). An Experiment in Measurement. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 97(2), 222–237. Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. The University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Langley, P., Simon, H. A., Bradshaw, G. L., Żytkow, J. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. University of California Press. Google Scholar
Lean, O. M., Rivelli, L., Pence, C. H. (2021). Digital Literature Analysis for Empirical Philosophy of Science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. https://doi.org/10.1086/715049
Crossref
Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study. The University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Levenstein, D., Alvarez, V. A., Amarasingham, A., Azab, H., Chen, Z. S., Gerkin, R. C., […] Redish, A. D. (2023). On the Role of Theory and Modeling in Neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience, 43(7), 1074–1088. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1179-22.2022
Crossref
Google Scholar
Litwin, P., Miłkowski, M. (2020). Unification by Fiat: Arrested Development of Predictive Processing. Cognitive Science, 44(7), e12867. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12867
Crossref
Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1996). Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy. W: L. H. Nelson i J. Nelson (red.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (s. 39–58). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1742-2_3
Crossref
Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K. (1970). On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13(1), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1970.13-83
Crossref
Google Scholar
Manninen, T., Aćimović, J., Havela, R., Teppola, H., Linne, M.-L. (2018). Challenges in Reproducibility, Replicability, and Comparability of Computational Models and Tools for Neuronal and Glial Networks, Cells, and Subcellular Structures. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 12, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00020
Crossref
Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. W. H. Freeman and Company. Google Scholar
Matthews, G. (2020). Against consensus: Embracing the disunity of personality theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109535
Crossref
Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (2010). The Virtues of a Good Theory. W: M. Curd i M. Psillos (red.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science (s. 561–571). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203744857.ch53
Crossref
Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1967). Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/288135
Crossref
Google Scholar
Miłkowski, M. (2019). Fallible Heuristics and Evaluation of Research Traditions. The Case of Embodied Cognition. Ruch Filozoficzny, 75(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.12775/RF.2019.031
Crossref
Google Scholar
Miłkowski, M. (2022). Cognitive Artifacts and Their Virtues in Scientific Practice. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 67(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2022-0012
Crossref
Google Scholar
Miłkowski, M., Hensel, W. M., Hohol, M. (2018). Replicability or reproducibility? On the replication crisis in computational neuroscience and sharing only relevant detail. Journal of Computational Neuroscience, 45(3), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10827-018-0702-z
Crossref
Google Scholar
Miłkowski, M., Litwin, P. (2022). Testable or bust: Theoretical lessons for predictive processing. Synthese, 200(6), 462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03891-9
Crossref
Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2008). The Toothbrush Problem. APS Observer, 21(11). https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-toothbrush-problem Google Scholar
Moretti, F. (2000). Conjectures on World Literature. New Left Review, 1, 54–68. Google Scholar
Morgan, M. S., Morrison, M. (1999). Models As Mediators. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1
Crossref
Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1973). You can’t play 20 questions with nature and win: Projective comments on the papers of this symposium. W: W. G. Chase (red.), Visual information processing (s. 283–308). Academic Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Newell, A., Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2018). TTT: A Fast Heuristic to New Theories? W: D. Danks i E. Ippoliti (red.), Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences (s. 169–189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72787-5_9
Crossref
Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (1991). Cognitive Artifacts. W: J. M. Carroll (red.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface (s. 17–38). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Norton, J. D. (2021). The Material Theory of Induction. University of Calgary Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., […] Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Crossref
Google Scholar
Oberauer, K., Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01645-2
Crossref
Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
Crossref
Google Scholar
Osbeck, L. M., Nersessian, N. J. (2014). Situating distributed cognition. Philosophical Psychology, 27(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.829384
Crossref
Google Scholar
Pence, C. H., Ramsey, G. (2018). How to Do Digital Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of Science, 85(5), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1086/699697
Crossref
Google Scholar
Piper, A. (2020). Can We Be Wrong? The Problem of Textual Evidence in a Time of Data. Cambridge University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Poldrack, R. A., Kittur, A., Kalar, D., Miller, E., Seppa, C., Gil, Y., […] Bilder, R. M. (2011). The Cognitive Atlas: Toward a Knowledge Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2011.00017
Crossref
Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (1979). Cognitive systematization: A systems-theoretic approach to a coherentist theory of knowledge. Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
Roberts, S., Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107(2), 358–358.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On Being Sane in Insane Places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4070.250
Crossref
Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Crossref
Google Scholar
Scheel, A. M., Tiokhin, L., Isager, P. M., Lakens, D. (2020). Why Hypothesis Testers Should Spend Less Time Testing Hypotheses. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 744–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966795
Crossref
Google Scholar
Schindler, S. (2018). Theoretical virtues in science: Uncovering reality through theory. Cambridge University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Schooler, J. W. (2014). Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis.’ Nature, 515(7525), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/515009a
Crossref
Google Scholar
Scull, A. (2023). Rosenhan revisited: Successful scientific fraud. History of Psychiatry, 0957154X221150878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X221150878
Crossref
Google Scholar
Shmueli, G. (2010). To Explain or to Predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS330
Crossref
Google Scholar
Shmueli, G., Koppius, O. R. (2011). Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 553. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042796
Crossref
Google Scholar
Silberzahn, R., Uhlmann, E. L., Martin, D. P., Anselmi, P., Aust, F., Awtrey, E., […] Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917747646
Crossref
Google Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611417632
Crossref
Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E. (2017). Models Are Stupid, and We Need More of Them. W: R. R. Vallacher, S. J. Read i A. Nowak (red.), Computational Social Psychology (wyd. 1, s. 311–331). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173726-14
Crossref
Google Scholar
Staats, A. W. (1986). Unified Positivism: A Philosophy for Psychology and the Disunified Sciences. Theoretical, Philosophical Psychology, 6(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091427
Crossref
Google Scholar
Sullivan, J. A. (2009). The multiplicity of experimental protocols: A challenge to reductionist and non-reductionist models of the unity of neuroscience. Synthese, 167(3), 511–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9389-4
Crossref
Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1962). Models of Data. W: E. Nagel, P. Suppes i A. Tarski (red.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (s. 252–261). Stanford University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Szollosi, A., Donkin, C. (2019). Neglected Sources of Flexibility in Psychological Theories: From Replicability to Good Explanations. Computational Brain, Behavior, 2(3–4), 190–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-019-00045-y
Crossref
Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1993). Computational philosophy of science. MIT Press. Google Scholar
Thagard, P., Findlay, S. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery, and conceptual change. MIT Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Trafimow, D., Earp, B. D. (2016). Badly specified theories are not responsible for the replication crisis in social psychology: Comment on Klein. Theory & Psychology, 26(4), 540–548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354316637136
Crossref
Google Scholar
Vadillo, M. A. (2019). Ego depletion may disappear by 2020. Social Psychology, 50, 282–291. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000375
Crossref
Google Scholar
Vadillo, M. A., Gold, N., Osman, M. (2016). The Bitter Truth About Sugar and Willpower: The Limited Evidential Value of the Glucose Model of Ego Depletion. Psychological Science, 27(9), 1207–1214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654911
Crossref
Google Scholar
Van Rooij, I. (2008). The Tractable Cognition Thesis. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 939–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801897856
Crossref
Google Scholar
Van Rooij, I., Baggio, G. (2021). Theory Before the Test: How to Build High-Verisimilitude Explanatory Theories in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970604
Crossref
Google Scholar
Vohs, K. D., Schmeichel, B. J., Lohmann, S., Gronau, Q. F., Finley, A. J., Ainsworth, S. E., […] Albarracín, D. (2021). A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect. Psychological Science. (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA). https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621989733
Crossref
Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (1993). DSM-III and the transformation of American psychiatry: A history. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(3), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.150.3.399
Crossref
Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T. (2022). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20001685
Crossref
Google Scholar
Yarkoni, T., Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
Crossref
Google Scholar
Young, G. (2016). Unifying Causality and Psychology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24094-7
Crossref
Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in Distributed Cognitive Tasks. Cognitive Science, 18(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1801_3
Crossref
Google Scholar
Zittoun, T., Gillespie, A., Cornish, F. (2009). Fragmentation or Differentiation: Questioning the Crisis in Psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(2), 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9083-6
Crossref
Google Scholar
Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7646-5742
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.