Reply to commentaries: Why should we worry about scientific conjunction fallacies?
Reply to commentaries: Why should we worry about scientific conjunction fallacies?
复制标题
回复评论：我们为什么要担心科学合取谬误？
DOI：
10.1037/dec0000176
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Robinson, Maria M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Regenwetter, Michel;Robinson, Maria M.
我们同意Erev和Feigin（2022）的观点，即应该在不同层次上建立异质性模型。我们不提倡分布优先或个体优先的方法，因为人口水平的异质性使异质性的来源复杂化。我们对Erev和Feigin的建议进行了限定，因为这两种方法都不能避免科学推理错误。我们同意Scheibehenne（2022）的观点，即如果“效应”在个体之间是稳健的，那么总体统计数据可以适当地总结行为。与这种理想化的情况相反，决策研究人员经常处理许多属性上重要的定性差异的共同发生。将个体差异误解为误差方差是有代价的，并且违反了过拟合的定义。我们同意Kellen（2022）的观点，即文献往往足够模糊，没有详细说明CPT MED比带有自由参数的CPT更能描述行为，但科学连接错误的范围并不局限于此。Regenwetter等人（2022）故意掩盖了研究的潜在局限性，如响应误差、样本质量、测量的可靠性和刺激的诊断性，以提出一个概念性的观点。推测这些因素的共同影响将使我们无法得知满足程式化理论的人数的下限和上限。研究设计中的“配方”也不能避免连接错误：谬误推理在科学理论的任何阶段都是有害的。我们同意Kellen的观点，即领导决策研究超越程式化理论的努力值得进一步关注和未来的工作。
We agree with Erev and Feigin (2022) that one should model heterogeneity at different levels. We do not promote either distribution-first or individual-first approaches over the others because population-level heterogeneity compounds sources of heterogeneity. We qualify Erev and Feigin’s proposals in that neither approach is immune to scientific reasoning errors. We agree with Scheibehenne (2022) that aggregate statistics can appropriately summarize behavior, provided that the “effects” are robust across individuals. In contrast to this idealized scenario, decision researchers often deal with the joint occurrence of important qualitative differences on numerous attributes. Misconstruing individual differences as error variance carries a cost and violates the definition of overfitting. We agree with Kellen (2022) that the literature is often vague enough not to state verbatum that CPT MED is more descriptive of behavior than CPT with free parameters, but scientific conjunction errors are not so limited in scope. Regenwetter et al.(2022) intentionally glossed over potential limitations of studies, such as response errors, sample quality, reliability of measures, and diagnosticity of stimuli, to make a conceptual point. Speculating about the joint influence of these factors would render us agnostic about the lower and upper bounds on the number of people who satisfy a stylized theory.“Recipes” in study design are not exempt from conjunction errors: Fallacious reasoning is pernicious at any stage of scientific theorizing. We agree with Kellen that efforts to lead decision research beyond stylized theory deserve much further attention and future work.