Are measurement theories falsifiable, and should we care?
Theory & Psychology2013Vol. 23(3), pp. 397–400
Citations Over Time
Abstract
Some measurement theories, of which classical test theory (CTT) is a prominent example, depend on definitions rather than on real assumptions that are susceptible to empirical confirmation or disconfirmation. Thus, there is a falsifiability issue that can be, and has been, used as a criticism. I suggest that this issue be replaced with that of surprising implications. As an example, although I agree that CTT is not falsifiable, it does suggest surprising implications. Consequently, CTT is a worthy theory despite not being falsifiable. I argue, more generally, that surprising implications are more important for evaluating theories than is their falsifiability.
Related Papers
- → Criticism Of Behavioural Economics: Attacks Towards Ideology, Evidence And Practical Application(2019)6 cited
- → Ontological and methodological virtues of unification(2020)1 cited
- → Is Scientific Realism an Empirical Hypothesis?(1995)7 cited
- Уточнение статуса логико-философских принципов фальсифицируемости и верифицируемости (научного знания) в философской эпистемологии (логические квадраты и гексагоны эпистемических сентенций)(2015)
- → Falsifiability and Methodological Invariance in Science(1991)