> These days it is probably not controversial to say that NHST [null hypothesis significance testing] has been psychology’s hammer that made cognition and behaviour look like a nail. Fervent use of this hammer, which took center stage in the ‘replication crisis’, has most certainly contributed to a relative [neglect of solid theory building in psychological science](https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/psychological-scienc...). Why? Well, a hammer (especially in the form of NHST) is not a suitable tool for sculpting theoretical models.
, and they seem to be explaining methods that employ modeling, like pretty much all STEM fields use.
Looks like a great opportunity for Psychology (and probably other similar fields too) to progress beyond prior practice.
Still, one also must acknowledge that the hammer of using simple formal models to describe human decision-making has led to a crisis as well (in microeconomic theory). So it's best to do it like Tversky and Kahneman and build formal models that are then empirically tested.
The premise is refreshing though -- they're pretty upfront about the huge problems in prior practice, e.g. (https://computationalcognitivescience.github.io/lovelace/par...):
> These days it is probably not controversial to say that NHST [null hypothesis significance testing] has been psychology’s hammer that made cognition and behaviour look like a nail. Fervent use of this hammer, which took center stage in the ‘replication crisis’, has most certainly contributed to a relative [neglect of solid theory building in psychological science](https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/psychological-scienc...). Why? Well, a hammer (especially in the form of NHST) is not a suitable tool for sculpting theoretical models.
, and they seem to be explaining methods that employ modeling, like pretty much all STEM fields use.
Looks like a great opportunity for Psychology (and probably other similar fields too) to progress beyond prior practice.