Chow's endorsement of a limited role for null hypothesis significance testing is a needed corrective of research malpractice, but his decision to place this procedure in a hypothetico-deductive framework of Popperian cast is unwise. Various failures of this version of the hypothetico-deductive method have negative implications for Chow's treatment of significance testing, meta-analysis, and theory evaluation.

The soundness of Chow's (1996; 1998a) argument depends on the soundness of his assertion that statistical significance may be understood to signify that chance may be excluded as the reason for results. The examples and arguments provided here show that statistical significance signifies no such thing.

That Haig and Sohn find the hypothetico-deductive approach wanting in different ways shows that multiple conditional syllogisms are being used in different stages of theory corroboration in the Popperian approach. The issues raised in the two commentaries assume a different complexion when certain distinctions are made.