Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T01:30:47.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popper's Severity of Test as an intuitive probabilistic model of hypothesis testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Fenna H. Poletiek
Fenna H. Poletiek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Leiden University, 2300RB Leiden, The Netherlands. poletiek@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Severity of Test (SoT) is an alternative to Popper's logical falsification that solves a number of problems of the logical view. It was presented by Popper himself in 1963. SoT is a less sophisticated probabilistic model of hypothesis testing than Oaksford & Chater's (O&C's) information gain model, but it has a number of striking similarities. Moreover, it captures the intuition of everyday hypothesis testing.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 99 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carnap, R. (1950) The logical foundations of probability. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (2007) Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. (1996) Paradoxes of falsification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A:447–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. (2001) Hypothesis-testing behavior. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Poletiek, F. H. & Berndsen, M. (2000) Hypothesis testing as risk behavior with regard to beliefs. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13:107–23.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963/1978) Conjectures and refutations, 4th edition. Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar