NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1142176
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2016-Aug
Pages: 6
Abstractor: As Provided
ISSN: ISSN-1525-822X
Assessing ESA on What It Is Designed For: A Reply to Cooper and Glaesser
Schneider, Carsten Q.; Wagemann, Claudius
Field Methods, v28 n3 p316-321 Aug 2016
We appreciate Barry Cooper and Judith Glaesser's (henceforth CG) energy and effort put into reflecting on parts of our proposals laid out in "Set-theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences" (2012). We use our response to explain what enhanced standard analysis (ESA) is meant to achieve and what not, an issue about which CG hold erroneous beliefs. In making their flawed argument against ESA, CG do, however, bring up broader issues in the handling of logical remainders that, so far, have not been explicitly addressed, such as contradictory simplifying assumptions in the analysis of necessity for the outcomes Y and ~Y. We use our response to spell out these issues more explicitly, as is done by CG.
SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A