Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGonzález Alonso, Jorge
dc.contributor.authorRothman, Jason
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-17T06:54:58Z
dc.date.available2020-06-17T06:54:58Z
dc.date.issued2020-06-10
dc.description.abstractThe scientific method is a process of conjecture (hypothesis generation), prediction and subsequent testing in an effort to gain greater understanding. By its very nature, then, it is a process where, much more often than not, theoretical contributions are destined to be wrong. Somewhat ironically, though, being wrong is essentially the goal. By initially assuming our theory – or the one(s) we are testing – is (are) wrong and providing clear predictions for falsification, we engage in the healthy process of elimination of otherwise reasonable conjectures. Failure to prove a theory wrong iteratively and with reliable replication, then, increases the odds that the original conjecture is less wrong than its competitors. Even in such cases, empiricism over time is likely to reveal imprecision in the original conjecture in absolute terms. The cyclical nature of the scientific method reveals the clandestine benefits of being wrong: each time a reasonable conjecture can be safely discarded we get closer and closer to ultimate understanding. In this sense, scientific inquiry and method parallel the structure and layer-by-layer peeling of an onion. Each underlying layer remains invisible to the naked eye before the peeling of the previous one. The emergence of (competing) new theories is, thus, stepwise in nature. The new departs from its predecessors having borne witness to – and thus benefitted from – the proverbial layers previously peeled. Progress too is stepwise, as all reasonable conjectures that were properly vetted empirically leave an indelible mark even as they are discarded.en_US
dc.identifier.citationRothman J, González Alonso J. Avoiding the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: Comments and questions regarding Full Transfer Potential . Second Language Research. 2020en_US
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 1815488
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320934135
dc.identifier.issn0267-6583
dc.identifier.issn1477-0326
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/18572
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.journalSecond Language Research
dc.relation.projectIDUiT Norges arktiske universitet: 2062165en_US
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2020 The Author(s)en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humanities: 000::Linguistics: 010en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Humaniora: 000::Språkvitenskapelige fag: 010en_US
dc.titleAvoiding the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: Comments and questions regarding Full Transfer Potentialen_US
dc.type.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record