Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A reexamination of the two kinds of scientific conjecture

  • Published:
The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Inestimable confusion has resulted from the common practice of discussing the role of theory in science without specifying the kind of theory referred to: i.e., conjectures based on abstraction from past sensory observations, which are the backbone of science, or Type 2 conjectures, which postulate imagined properties. The latter can never receive empirical support (by “indirect confirmation” or otherwise); they impede the progress of science; they contribute nothing to scientific knowledge; and they cause much waste of time, money, and journal space in futile debates. Hypothetical constructs—giving out “a dream of our own imagination for a pattern of the world”—serve no useful purpose in science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADAMS, D. K. Note on method. Psychol. Rev. 1937, 44, 212–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANASTASI, ANNE. The concept of validity in the interpretation of test scores. Educ. psychol. Measmt, 1950, 10, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • APA Committee on Psychological Tests. Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychol. Bull. Suppl. 1954, 51, 2, Part 2, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BACON, F. The great instauration: the plan of the work. 1620. Reprinted in Selected writings of Francis Bacon; with an introduction and notes by Hugh G. Dick. New York: Modern Library, 1955. Pp. 439–451. (a)

    Google Scholar 

  • BACON, F. The new organon. 1620. Reprinted as cited above. Pp. 453–540. (b)

  • BECHTOLDT, H. B. Construct validity: a critique. Amer. Psychologist, 1960, 15, 619–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • BERGMANN, G. Philosophy of science. Madison: Univer. Wisconsin Press, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • BERGMANN, G., and SPENCE, K. W. Operationism and theory in psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1941, 48, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BEVERIDGE, W. I. B. The art of scientific investigation. (Rev. ed.) New York: Norton, 1957.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • BLAKE, R. M., DUCASSE, C. J. and MADDEN, E. H. Theories of scientific method: the Renaissance through the nineteenth century. Seattle: Univer. Washington Press, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • BOLLES, R. C. Occam’s razor and the science of behavior. Psychol. Rep., 1957, 3, 321–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BORING, E. G. The role of theory in experimental psychology. Amer. J. Psychol., 1953, 66, 169–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • BRAITHWAITE, R. B. Scientific explanation: a study of the function of theory, probability, and law in science. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer. Press, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • BRIDGMAN, P. W. The logic of modem physics. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • BROWN, G. B. Science: its method and its philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • CAJORI, F. Newtons Principia: Motte’s translation revised. Berkeley: Univer. California Press, 1934.

    Google Scholar 

  • CAMPBELL, D. T., & FISKE, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull., 1959, 56, 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CONANT, J. B. Science and common sense. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  • CRONBACH, L. J., & MEEHL, P. E. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull., 1955, 52, 281–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DALLENBACH, K. M. The place of theory in science. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 33–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DAVIS, R. C. Physical psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 7–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DINGLE, H. Science and human experience. London: Williams & Norgate, 1931.

    Google Scholar 

  • DUHEM, P. La théorie physique: son objet et sa structure. Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENGLISH, H. B., & ENGLISH, A. C. A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms: a guide to usage. New York: Longmans, Green, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • FARRELL, B. A. On the limits of experimental psychology. Brit. J. psychol., 1955, 46, 165–177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FEIGL, H. Philosophical embarrassments of psychology. Amer. Psychologist, 1959, 14, 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GAMOW, G. Matter, earth, and sky. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • GELDARD, F. A. ‘Explanatory principles’ in psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1939, 46, 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GUTHRIE, E. R. On the nature of psychological explanations. Psychol. Rev., 1933, 40, 124–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HARLOW, H. F. Motivation as a factor in the acquisition of new responses. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Current theory and research in motivation: a symposium. Vol. 1. Lincoln: Univer. Nebraska Press, 1953. Pp. 24–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEMPEL, C. G. Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science. Chicago: Univer. Chicago Press, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  • HERSCHEL, J. F. W. Preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. (Cabinet cyclopaedia ed.) London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1842.

    Google Scholar 

  • HULL, C. L. The conflicting psychologies of learning—a way out. Psychol. Rev., 1935, 42, 491–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HULL, C. L. Mind, mechanism, and adaptive behavior. Psychol. Rev., 1937, 44, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JENKINS, J. J., & LYKKEN, D. T. Individual differences. Ann. Rev. psychol., 1957, 8, 79–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JEVONS, W. S. The principles of science: a treatise on logic and scientific method. New York: Macmillan, 1874.

    Google Scholar 

  • JOHNSON, H. M. On verifying hypotheses by verifying their implicates. Amer. J. psychol., 1954, 67, 723–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • KENDLER, H. H. “What is learned?”—a theoretical blind alley. Psychol Rev. 1952, 59, 269–277.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • KESSEN, W., & KIMBLE, G. A. “Dynamic systems” and theory construction. Psychol Rev., 1952, 59, 263–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • KNEALE, W. Probability and induction. 1949. Pages 92–110 reprinted in H. Feigl & May Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of science. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953. Pp. 353–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • KOCH, S. Behavior as “intrinsically” regulated; work notes toward a pre-theory of phenomena called “motivational.” In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Current theory and research in motivation: a symposium. Vol. 4. Lincoln: Univer. Nebraska Press, 1956. Pp. 42–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • KRECH, D. Dynamic systems, psychological fields, and hypothetical constructs. Psychol. Rev., 1950, 57, 283–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LEWIN, K. Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In L. Carmichael, Manual of child psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley, 1954. Pp. 918–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • LOEVINGER, JANE. Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychol. Rep., 1957, 3, 635–694. (Monogr. Suppl. No. 9).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCORQUODALE, K., & MEEHL, P. E. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 95–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGUIGAN, F. J. Confirmation of theories in psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 98–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MARX, M. H. Intervening variable or hypothetical construct? psychol, Rev., 1951, 58, 235–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAZE, J. R. Do intervening variables intervene? Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 226–234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MEEHL, P. E. Clinical versus statistical prediction. Minneapolis: Univer. Minnesota Press, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • MILL, J. S. System of logic. (8th ed.) New York: Harper, 1874.

    Google Scholar 

  • MILLER, J. G. Symbolic technique in psychological theory. Psychol. Rev., 1939, 46, 464–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’NEIL, W. M. Hypothetical terms and relations in psychological theorizing. Brit. J. psychol., 1953, 44, 211–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PIERCE, C. S. Illustrations of the logic of science. Sixth paper. Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Sci. Mon., 1878, 13, 470–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • POLYA, G. Mathematics and plausible reasoning. 2 vols. Princeton: Princeton Univer. Press, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • PRATT, C. C. Operationism in psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1945, 52, 262–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RANKINE, W. V. M. Outlines of the science energetics. Proc. Philosophical Soc. Glasgow, 1855, vol. 3. Reprinted in W. V. M. Rankine, Miscellaneous scientific papers. London: Griffin, 1881. Pp. 209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • REICHENBACH, H. The theory of probability: an inquiry into the logical and mathematical foundations of the calculus of probability. (2nd ed.) Trans. by E. Hutten & Maria Reichenbach. Berkeley: Univer. California Press, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  • RITCHIE, B. F. A logical and experimental analysis of the laws of motivation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Current theory and research in motivation: a symposium. Vol. 2. Lincoln: Univer. Nebraska Press, 1954. Pp. 121–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • ROZEBOOM, W. W. Mediational variables in scientific theory. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 249–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RUSSELL, B. Mysticism and logic and other essays. New York: Longmans, Green, 1918.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • RUSSELL, B. Analysis of matter. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • RUSSELL, B. An inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: Norton, 1940.

    Google Scholar 

  • SARBIN, T. R. The logic of prediction in psychology. Psychol. Rev., 1944, 51, 210–228.

  • SARBIN, T. R. Role theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Theory and method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Pp. 223–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHLICK, M. Philosophy of nature. Trans, by A. von Zeppelin. New York: Philosophical Library, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIDMAN, M. Tactics of scientific research: evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. Are theories of learning necessary? Psychol. Rev., 1950, 57, 193–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1953.

    Google Scholar 

  • SKINNER, B. F. Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • STEVENS, S. S. Psychology and the science of science. Psychol. Bull., 1939, 36, 221–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TOLMAN, E. C. Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century, 1932.

    Google Scholar 

  • TORGERSON, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • TURNER, W. S. Can psychology be made wholly objective? Amer. Psychologist, 1961, 16, 142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNDERWOOD, B. J. Psychological research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHEWELL, W. Novum Organum renovatum. London: John W. Parker & son 1858.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHITTAKER, E. Eddington’s principle in the philosophy of science. Amer. Scientist, 1952, 40, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • WOODGER, J. H. Physics, psychology and medicine. A methodological essay. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer. Press, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • WOODWORTH, R. S. Dynamics of behavior. New York: Holt, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • ZUBIN, J. On the powers of models. J. Pers., 1952, 20, 430–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Berkeley, USA

    Walter S. Turner

Authors
  1. Walter S. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author wishes to thank Drs. T. R. Sarbin, B. J. Underwood, C. C. Pratt, and K. M. Dallenbach for their help and encouragement while he was writing this paper. He is also indebted, for suggestions and criticisms of early drafts to many others — especially to Drs. H. P. Bechtoldt, J. S. Block, R. C. Bolles, D. T. Campbell, L. J. Cronbach, R. C. Davis, G. M. French, E. J. McGuigan, J. P. McKee, and P. E. Meehl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turner, W.S. A reexamination of the two kinds of scientific conjecture. Psychol Rec 11, 279–298 (1961). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393412

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393412

Search

Navigation