Scientific realism, the necessity of causal contact in measurement, and emergent variables

Design/methodology/approach

A reflective essay.

Purpose

To correct errors in, and comment on the claims made in the comment papers of Rigdon (in press) and Henseler and Schuberth (in press), and to tidy up any substantive oversights made in Cadogan and Lee (in press).

Findings

(1) In scientific realism, hypothetical causal contact between the unobserved and the observed is a key foundational stance, and as such, Rigdon’s CPF is inherently anti-realist in nature. (2) The suggestion that composite-creating statistical packages (such as PLS) can model emergent variables should be treated with skepticism by realists.

Research limitations/implications

Claims made by Rigdon regarding the realism of CPF are unfounded, and claims by Henseler and Schuberth regarding the universal suitability of PLS as a tool for use by researchers of all ontological stripes (see their Table 5) do not appear to be well-grounded.

Practical Implications

Realists should not use PLS.

Originality

The study assesses PLS using the Eleatic Principle, and examines Henseler and Schuberth’s version of emergent variables from an ontological perspective.