Getting it right: a reply to baum.

van der Molen (2010) wrote a reply to Baum. The paper is theoretical. It questions the generalized matching law. It asks if the law truly shows cause and effect. It warns the law may come from sloppy scientific talk, not from nature.

The author argues the matching law might be a verbal artifact. That means our own scientific words could fool us. If the words are imprecise, the law looks real when it is not. The paper urges us to check our verbal behavior first.

Marr (1989) wanted more Newton-style equations for behavior. van der Molen (2010) now says those same equations can mislead if the words behind them are shaky. The two papers share a love of numbers, but the newer one adds a warning label.

Wilkie (1973) rebuilt the law of effect around correlations, not single events. van der Molen (2010) nods to such models, then asks whether any tidy equation is just a pretty sentence we have talked ourselves into believing.

Jones et al. (2010) compared two new law-of-effect models in the same year. They tweak variables to get better fit. van der Molen (2010) steps back and asks whether the whole game of model-tweaking rests on solid verbal ground. The papers do not fight; one builds models while the other inspects the foundation.

Before you graph another matching equation, audit the words you used to build it. Replace vague terms with clear, measurable ones. Ask a colleague to repeat your instructions back to you. If their words differ, your verbal behavior needs work. Clean talk first, clean data second.