A philosophy of science for personality theory.Methods of evidence in arriving at knowledge.

Abstract

Distinguishes between two forms of methodological evidence which enter into the evolution of knowledge, and shows how one form serves to influence the other and vice versa. Procedural evidence involves the belief in a theoretical proposition because of its intelligibility, its consistency with the common-sense knowledge of one's group then in ascendance, or its implicit self-evidence. On the other hand, when we believe a theoretical proposition on the basis of the observable consequences following a prescribed succession of events designed to test that proposition, we do so on the basis of validating evidence. Procedural evidence carries a greater sense of conviction than validating evidence, but this does not make it an infallible guide to the truth of a proposition. It is a truism to say that both forms of evidence are equally essential to the development of a scientific psychology. Unfortunately, certain psychologists have mistakenly identified the method of science as nothing but the use of validating evidence, while other psychologists have mistakenly accepted procedural evidence as necessarily validating theoretical propositions. Chapter IV closes with a discussion of knowledge, stressing the fact that it is a higher-order meaning construct which considers both theory and method in propounding a point of view. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)