Against external validity

33Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Francesco Guala once wrote that ‘The problem of extrapolation (or external validity as it is sometimes called) is a minor scandal in the philosophy of science’. This paper agrees with the statement, but for reasons different from Guala’s. The scandal is not, or not any longer, that the problem has been ignored in the philosophy of science. The scandal is that framing the problem as one of external validity encourages poor evidential reasoning. The aim of this paper is to propose an alternative—an alternative which constitutes much better evidential reasoning about target systems of interest, and which makes do without (much) consideration of external validity.

References Powered by Scopus

Field experiments

1690Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials

932Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The credibility revolution in empirical economics: How better research design is taking the con out of econometrics

907Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Abductive Theory Construction

36Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Beyond generalization: a theory of robustness in machine learning

31Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Is meta-analysis of RCTs assessing the efficacy of interventions a reliable source of evidence for therapeutic decisions?

13Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Reiss, J. (2019). Against external validity. Synthese, 196(8), 3103–3121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1796-6

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 16

62%

Lecturer / Post doc 4

15%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

12%

Researcher 3

12%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Philosophy 5

33%

Social Sciences 4

27%

Computer Science 3

20%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

20%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free