| Abstract: | O'Keefe argues that the logic of experiment‐wise error correction is flawed, presenting a number of counterexamples as evidence for his claim. He asserts that there is no consistent principle that discriminates legitimate from absurd uses of this logic. I supply such a principle and defend it with his own counterexamples. In sum, O'Keefe's critique raises important methodological questions, provokes discussion that may help answer them, but goes too far in indicting the logic of experiment‐wise error correction. |
