ABSTRACT
Lively debate on a controversial issue is often regarded as a healthy sign in science. Anomalous or conflicting findings generated from alternative theoretical viewpoints often precede major theoretical advances in the more developed sciences (Kuhn, 1970), but this does not seem to be the case in the social and behavioral sciences. As Meehl (1978) pointed out nearly 20 years ago, theories in the behavioral sciences do not emerge healthier and stronger after a period of challenge and debate. Instead, our theories often fade away as we grow tired, confused, and frustrated by the lack of consistent research evidence. The reasons are many, including relatively crude measurement procedures and the lack of strong theories underlying our research endeavors (Platt, 1964; Rossi, 1985, 1990). But not least among our problems is that the accumulation of knowledge in the behavioral sciences often relies upon judgments and assessments of evidence that are rooted in statistical significance testing.
