Abstract

Eysenck’s paper is about metatheoretical and substantive theoretical issues. Since I am almost wholly in agreement on the metatheoretical issues, I shall pass them over in silence (especially since I also believe that the best justification for this or that approach to science is simply to get on with it and show what it can achieve). And since a cardinal feature of Eysenck’s approach to science is that substantive theories must stand or fall by their success in accounting for empirical data, I shall concentrate in this commentary on a few key points at which one of Eysenck’s own theories is in danger of foundering (for a fuller treatment, see Gray, 1981).

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.