ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2021
The Real Problem with Hypothetical Constructs.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conceptual Foundations: Teaching the Historical Development of Radical Behaviorism as a Philosophy of Science.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- A Case for Observability.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent discussion in this journal revolved around the issue of whether postulating internal clocks is harmful or beneficial to scientific psychology, and how. I argue that this and other discussions on the topic have yet to address the real problem: The concept of a hypothetical construct is unintelligible. Psychologists agree that all entities that constitute hypothetical constructs are unobservable, importantly different from observable entities, including overt behavior and its environment. The root issue at hand here, then, is the observable-unobservable distinction. Psychologists have implicitly but erroneously taken it for granted as sufficiently unproblematic to warrant meaningful discussions based on it, when in fact it is a pernicious untenable remnant of logical positivism. All previous discussions of hypothetical constructs in psychology have overlooked arguments against this view in the philosophy of science. These arguments are sufficiently compelling to at least question, if not cease altogether, talk of observability, unobservability, and HCs in psychology as useless, even harmful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.