Against naïve induction from experimental data.

Kellen, David; Cox, Gregory E; Donkin, Chris; Dunn, John C; Shiffrin, Richard M

Kellen, David; Cox, Gregory E; Donkin, Chris; Dunn, John C; Shiffrin, Richard M.

Afiliación

Kellen D; Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA davekellen@gmail.com.
Cox GE; Department of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA gecox@albany.edu.
Donkin C; Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, München, Germany christopher.donkin@gmail.com.
Dunn JC; Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia john.dunn@uwa.edu.au.
Shiffrin RM; Psychological and Brain Sciences Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA shiffrin@indiana.edu.

Behav Brain Sci ; 47: e51, 2024 Feb 05.

Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38311445

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

This commentary argues against the indictment of current experimental practices such as piecemeal testing, and the proposed integrated experiment design (IED) approach, which we see as yet another attempt at automating scientific thinking. We identify a number of undesirable features of IED that lead us to believe that its broad application will hinder scientific progress.

Asunto(s)

Proyectos de Investigación

Texto completo

Imprimir

XML

PubMed Links

Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Proyectos de Investigación Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Behav Brain Sci Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo

Imprimir

XML

PubMed Links

Buscar en Google