# Hypothetico-deductive science

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hypothetico-deductive-science/5373>\
**Category:** CSG1995\
**Created:** [November 22, 1995, 3:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hypothetico-deductive-science/5373 "1995-11-22T15:31:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Samuel\_Saunders1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@Samuel\_Saunders1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Samuel_Saunders1)\
**Post date:** [November 22, 1995, 3:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/hypothetico-deductive-science/5373/1 "1995-11-22T15:31:02Z")

</div>

[From Samuel Saunders(951122.16:53:50 EST)]

> Bill Powers (951121.2100 MST)  
> To make a model, one must venture a guess about invisible mechanisms,  
> not simply generalize from observations. I believe that the correct name  
> for this process is the "hypothetico-deductive" method. As I interpret  
> these words, they mean hypothesizing an underlying mechanism, then  
> deducing from the properties of that mechanism some observable  
> phenomenon for comparison with real observations. This is what Newton  
> did. This is what PCT does. I do not believe it is what reinforcement  
> theorists did.

This is \_exactly\_ what Clark Hull and Ken Spence did, and they called  
their method the "hypothetico-deductive" method. Hull, Spence, and their  
followers emphasized the Vienna school of logical positivist philosophy of  
science in justifying their approach. The theories were replete with  
"hypothetical constructs" and "intervening variables". As Bruce Abbott has  
mentioned in previous posts, it was in part the proliferation of research  
done in this context, which was of little or no use except in the context  
of specific tests of specific theories, which lead to the "botanizing of  
behavior" approach favored by many in EAB.

//----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
//Samuel Spence Saunders,Ph.D.