Special Coverage
Doing Post-hoc Explanation Right (168)
Chris Donkin and Aba Szollosi (University of New South Wales)
Summary by Taylor Curley, Digital Content Associate Editor
This recap is part of a special series of session summaries
from the Psychonomic Society's 61st Annual Meeting. To read the rest of the series, click here.
In Science, Missing the Target Is Okay
Have you heard the joke about the Texas Sharpshooter? A Texan
fires a couple of shots at the side of a barn. He then walks up to the wall,
paints a target around his bullet holes, and declares himself a crack shot.
This parable is often used to illustrate the dangers of post-hoc
reasoning and to champion measures that prevent hasty changes to theories, such
as a priori specification of hypotheses and preregistration of experimental
studies. Because of this, many researchers have drawn the same conclusion:
Post-hoc exploration is bad.
Chris
Donkin and Aba Szollosi argue that such rigid thinking is
unnecessary in empirical research and that post-hoc explanations are vital to
the scientific enterprise. Instead of taking care to predict all possible
outcomes in advance, researchers should instead focus on specifying theories
that are hard-to-vary,
or ones that cannot be easily changed after data is collected, but are flexible
enough to explain deviations from the expected results.
Consider a situation in which your friend claims to be excellent
at free-throws in basketball. In this example, a “bad” theory would be akin to
aiming for a basket the size of an empty swimming pool: The target is so broad
that it will capture virtually any shot, regardless of skill. In contrast, a
“good,” hard-to-vary theory would be like shooting free-throws towards a
normal-sized basket. What is crucial about this distinction is that your friend
may not always make the basket despite being an expert shooter. However, the
target is narrow enough that your friend can sufficiently explain why some
shots were missed, such as a small lapse in technique or a gust of wind if the
court is outside.
In short, Donkin and Szollosi’s talk reminds us that post-hoc
explanations are not only valid but are also useful tools in science: Just make
sure that your target well-defined.
|