IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormksc/v28y2009i5p1001-1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

—Think Theory Testing, Not Realism

Author

Listed:
  • Steven M. Shugan

    (Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611)

Abstract

Eric Tsang's response makes the legitimate point that prediction and explanation can be different goals. However, his arguments also suffer from several errors in logic, most often the converse error. I do not claim that unrealistic assumptions breed good theories. I only claim that breakthrough theories usually have assumptions deemed unrealistic. Hence, unrealistic assumptions breed both good and bad theories. That is why science tests theories, not assumptions. Moreover, one can easily prove that realistic assumptions are not required. Consider situations when one of two competing theories must be correct. For example, in criminal cases, the prosecution's theory is that the accused committed the crime. The defense's theory is that the accused is innocent. One theory is correct despite the fact that both could make obviously unrealistic assumptions. For example, the prosecution might unrealistically assume that unreliable eyewitness testimony is sufficient to convict. The defense might unrealistically assume that a dubious alibi is sufficient to acquit. Juries decide on all the evidence and not each assumption. I now answer some of Eric Tsang's questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven M. Shugan, 2009. "—Think Theory Testing, Not Realism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 1001-1001, 09-10.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:5:p:1001-1001
    DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1090.0496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0496
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mksc.1090.0496?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven M. Shugan, 2007. "—It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, 07-08.
    2. Steven M. Shugan, 2009. "—Relevancy Is Robust Prediction, Not Alleged Realism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 991-998, 09-10.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eric W. K. Tsang, 2009. "—Robust Prediction and Unrealistic Assumptions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 999-1000, 09-10.
    2. Decker, Reinhold & Trusov, Michael, 2010. "Estimating aggregate consumer preferences from online product reviews," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 293-307.
    3. Mitra, Debanjan & Fay, Scott, 2010. "Managing Service Expectations in Online Markets: A Signaling Theory of E-tailer Pricing and Empirical Tests," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 184-199.
    4. Steven M. Shugan, 2009. "—Relevancy Is Robust Prediction, Not Alleged Realism," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 991-998, 09-10.
    5. Peter Ebbes & Dominik Papies & Harald J. van Heerde, 2011. "The Sense and Non-Sense of Holdout Sample Validation in the Presence of Endogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1115-1122, November.
    6. Eric W. K. Tsang, 2009. "—Assumptions, Explanation, and Prediction in Marketing Science: “It's the Findings, Stupid, Not the Assumptions”," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 986-990, 09-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormksc:v:28:y:2009:i:5:p:1001-1001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.