Abstract

Psychological research has generally suffered from methodological fundamentalism, which is an overly strict interpretation of what is considered “scientific” and has created a psychology of triviality. Methodological fundamentalism often constricts the study of a complex dynamic psychology that encompasses both observed and unobserved reality with interacting and interdependent variables. In Against Method, Feyerabend (1993) posits there could be no set scientific method and that great scientists are methodological opportunists who use any methodology that helps with discovery. As opposed to Fisher’s (1925) arbitrary, categorical standard of p<.05, I suggest as a strength of a scientific finding the review of confidence levels of across various populations, methods, measures and forms of analyses. Eventually, I hope that an unbiased computer analysis of studies can guide researchers as to what theories show high confidence levels across various populations, methods, measures and forms of analyses and suggest the next step to advance the science.