Psychology and "ordinary language"—a critique of Smedslund

This article takes up methodological issues of the kind raised by Jan Smedslund in earlier issues of this journal, concerning the status of psychological enquiry as a discipline. Arguments are presented which aim to show that Smedslund has failed to establish the thesis that all generally valid theoretical statements in psychology are explications of conceptual relationships embedded in ordinary language, i.e., analytic statements. Some specific examples of what Smedslund takes to be "ordinary language theorems" are examined. Doubts are expressed concerning the validity of the proof procedure Smedslund employs in the "demonstration" of a number of his alleged theorems. Finally, it is argued that the results produced by the situation-bound and culture-bound empirical research of the psychologist need not be viewed as "arbitrary" in Smedslund's sense of that term.