Formal Theory Construction

2017 ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Sheldon Ekland-Olson ◽  
Jack P. Gibbs
2021 ◽  
pp. 174569162097469
Author(s):  
Donald J. Robinaugh ◽  
Jonas M. B. Haslbeck ◽  
Oisín Ryan ◽  
Eiko I. Fried ◽  
Lourens J. Waldorp

In recent years, a growing chorus of researchers has argued that psychological theory is in a state of crisis: Theories are rarely developed in a way that indicates an accumulation of knowledge. Paul Meehl raised this very concern more than 40 years ago. Yet in the ensuing decades, little has improved. We aim to chart a better path forward for psychological theory by revisiting Meehl’s criticisms, his proposed solution, and the reasons his solution failed to meaningfully change the status of psychological theory. We argue that Meehl identified serious shortcomings in our evaluation of psychological theories and that his proposed solution would substantially strengthen theory testing. However, we also argue that Meehl failed to provide researchers with the tools necessary to construct the kinds of rigorous theories his approach required. To advance psychological theory, we must equip researchers with tools that allow them to better generate, evaluate, and develop their theories. We argue that formal theories provide this much-needed set of tools, equipping researchers with tools for thinking, evaluating explanation, enhancing measurement, informing theory development, and promoting the collaborative construction of psychological theories.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Robinaugh ◽  
Jonas M B Haslbeck ◽  
Oisín Ryan ◽  
Eiko I Fried ◽  
Lourens Waldorp

In recent years, a growing chorus of researchers have argued that psychological theory is in a state of crisis: theories are rarely developed in a way that indicates an accumulation of knowledge and they are often absent from our research entirely. More than 40 years ago, Paul Meehl raised these very concerns. Yet, in the ensuing decades, little has improved. We aim to chart a better path forward for psychological theory by revisiting Meehl's criticisms, his proposed solution, and the reasons his solution failed to meaningful change the status of psychological theory. We argue that Meehl identified serious shortcomings in our evaluation of psychological theories and that his proposed solution would substantially strengthen theory testing. However, we also argue that he failed to provide researchers a set of tools for theory construction. To advance psychological theory, we must equip researchers with tools to better generate, evaluate, and develop their theories. We argue that formal theories provide this much needed set of tools, equipping researchers with tools for thinking, evaluating explanation, informing theory development, strengthening measurement, and moving toward collaborative construction of psychological theories that allow us to explain, predict, and control psychological phenomena.


1972 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 358-359
Author(s):  
KURT W. BACK
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Jacob Stegenga

This chapter introduces the book, describes the key arguments of each chapter, and summarizes the master argument for medical nihilism. It offers a brief survey of prominent articulations of medical nihilism throughout history, and describes the contemporary evidence-based medicine movement, to set the stage for the skeptical arguments. The main arguments are based on an analysis of the concepts of disease and effectiveness, the malleability of methods in medical research, and widespread empirical findings which suggest that many medical interventions are barely effective. The chapter-level arguments are unified by our best formal theory of inductive inference in what is called the master argument for medical nihilism. The book closes by considering what medical nihilism entails for medical practice, research, and regulation.


Author(s):  
Juan de Lara ◽  
Esther Guerra

AbstractModelling is an essential activity in software engineering. It typically involves two meta-levels: one includes meta-models that describe modelling languages, and the other contains models built by instantiating those meta-models. Multi-level modelling generalizes this approach by allowing models to span an arbitrary number of meta-levels. A scenario that profits from multi-level modelling is the definition of language families that can be specialized (e.g., for different domains) by successive refinements at subsequent meta-levels, hence promoting language reuse. This enables an open set of variability options given by all possible specializations of the language family. However, multi-level modelling lacks the ability to express closed variability regarding the availability of language primitives or the possibility to opt between alternative primitive realizations. This limits the reuse opportunities of a language family. To improve this situation, we propose a novel combination of product lines with multi-level modelling to cover both open and closed variability. Our proposal is backed by a formal theory that guarantees correctness, enables top-down and bottom-up language variability design, and is implemented atop the MetaDepth multi-level modelling tool.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document