Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T10:44:04.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Method in Experiment: Rhetoric and Reality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Vernon L. Smith*
Affiliation:
Professor of Economics and Law, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, George Mason University, Truland Building 400-J, 3330 Washington blvd, Arlington Virginia

Abstract

The methodological ideal of experimentalists, E, is easily stated: derive a testable hypothesis, H, from a well-specified theory, T; implement experiments with a design; implicitly in the latter are auxiliary hypotheses, A, that surface in the review/discussion of completed research reports (payoffs are ‘adequate,’ Ss are ‘relevant,’ instructions, context are ‘clear,’ etc.). We want to be able to conclude, if statistical test outcomes support not-H, that T is ‘falsified.’ But this is not what we do; rather we ask if there is a flaw in the test, i.e. not-A is supported, and we do more experiments. This is good practice—much better than the statistical rhetoric of falsificationism. Undesigned social processes allow E to accumulate technical and instrumental knowledge that drive the reduction of experimental error and constitute a more coherent methodology than falsificationism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2002 Economic Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable