ABSTRACT
The extent to which psychological research can be suitably described as a scientific enterprise has long been a source of doubt, anxiety, and reflection. To those who are rightly impressed by the achievements in the physical sciences, the activity of psychological researchers seems inadequate and impoverished by comparison. In order to be described as a legitimate scientific enterprise it would seem that psychology must be able to satisfy some minimum standards of scientific adequacy. One should reasonably expect, for example, that psychology be capable of generating powerful theories that can be severely tested by precise hypothesis-testing procedures. It should further be expected that one be able to detect cumulative progress in the various theoretical domains of the discipline as a result of these theory-appraising methodologies. But the ability of psychological research to satisfy these twin expectations is precisely what is called into question. Indeed, psychological research is often said to be atheoretical, non-cumulative, and saddled with a statistical hypothesis-testing methodology that is either deeply flawed or else ill-used by researchers.
