No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 October 2011
Elqayam & Evans (E&E) suggest descriptivism as a way to avoid fallacies and research biases. We argue, first, that descriptive and prescriptive theories might be better off with a closer interaction between “is” and “ought.” Moreover, while we acknowledge the problematic nature of the discussed fallacies and biases, important aspects of research would be lost through a broad application of descriptivism.
Target article
Naturalizing the normative and the bridges between “is” and “ought”
Related commentaries (1)
Subtracting “ought” from “is”: Descriptivism versus normativism in the study of human thinking