Concerning instrumental autonomic conditioning: A rejoinder.

A. Crider, G. Schwartz, and S. Shnidman's (see 43:8) reply to E. S. Katkin and E. N. Murray's (see 42:10) review of instrumental autonomic conditioning makes several valid points but also contains many differences in interpretation based on a contrasting theoretical position. It is contended herein that the acceptability of "facts" as "facts" and "evidence" as "evidence" is determined often by predisposing epistemological orientations. Many of Crider et al.'s points are well taken, but the evidence on instrumental autonomic conditioning in humans remains far less convincing than the evidence available from animal studies. The methodological questions raised by Katkin and Murray's earlier paper appear to be clarified substantially by some of Crider et al.'s comments; however, the clarification has not reduced the danger of artifacts being interpreted as substantive evidence. (30 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)