For any (alleged) generalization that we might have seen, heard, or might want to "use" or think of, I suggest that we check and see how the predicted schematic asymmetry is deduced by what (universal and language-particular) hypotheses, how the prediction can be tested, and whether we obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in accordance with the prediction, in line with the methodological proposal summarized under Methodology [42404].

If we fail to obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry, that means something must be wrong, and the continuing use of such an alleged generalization is likely to result in more confusion (if one is interested in language faculty science as an exact science) than anything, although it may contribute to the creation and expansion of "a swamp over which the paralyzing vapours of the publication explosion hold an eternal sway" as Popper 1974: 977 puts it.

My 2003 Lingua paper and much of the subsequent works are an attempt to critically evaluate the empirical claims made in Hoji 1985 with regard to bound variable anaphora and scope dependency in Japanese, in line with the above. As pointed out in some depth in works by Ayumi Ueyama and J.-R. Hayashishita, the generalizations as presented in Hoji 1985 cannot be maintained as such. As discussed in the works just alluded to and elsewhere, and as will be further illustrated in the work that I hope will be made available soon, we can indeed obtain confirmed predicted schematic asymmetries (i.e., a high degree of reproducibility of the informant judgments as predicted) with regard to bound variable anaphora (and also scope dependency) by identifying the most effective experimental devices in various "preliminary experiments."

If an alleged generalization fails to constitute a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry, one can always try to identify the experimental devices that might be responsible for the failure, modify the hypotheses and/or the experimental design, and make (slightly) different predictions accordingly, etc. If one can obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in that way, one has indeed made significant progress in identifying a "fact" in language faculty science, along with a plausible "account" of it. The effective/reliable hypotheses and various other experimental devices thus identified will be used in further theorizing and experimentation.

Included in the experimental devices here is the choice of a so-called binder-bindee pair. Certain pairs are effective experimental devices in discovering properties of the language faculty, more narrowly, those of the Computational System of the language faculty, but others are not. We have a better chance of obtaining a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry with the former type of pairs than with the latter type. And we should insist on using the former type in subsequent theorizing and experiments. As pointed out in Methodology [42417], the main purpose of identifying the most effective experimental devices in this way is to leave as little room as possible for making "excuses" for failing to obtain an experimental result in accordance with our prediction in subsequent experiments. The relevant remark in Methodology [42417] is repeated here. It addresses the quality (and hence the effectiveness) of informants rather than the effectiveness of other experimental devices, but the point is the same.

In order to obtain a rigorous and categorical experimental result in accordance with the prediction (i.e., the predicted schematic asymmetry), informant-classification or informant-calibration is necessary by means of "preliminary experiments." It cannot be emphasized more that such informant-calibration and informant-classification are for the purpose of maximizing the effectiveness of the experimental result, which in turn is for the purpose of maximizing the significance of the experimental device. The main purpose of this is to leave as little room as possible for making "excuses" for failing to obtain an experimental result in accordance with our prediction. Those researchers who do not pursue rigorous testability and pursue "compatibility-based research" seem to think that informant-calibration and informant-classification are for the purpose of obtaining the experimental results that we want. But the real purpose of informant-calibration and informant-grouping is to maximize the significance of the experimental result, and ultimately to maximize testability.

In fact, one of the reviewers of the preliminary version of my 2003 Lingua paper remarked, "The paper starts out searching for the "right example" to confirm the c-command based theory. So, the reader gets the impression that one can argue for any theory by finding specific examples that fit it." The "right examples" is not quite correct. But starting out searching the "right binder" and the "right bindee" is right. If we did not have the "right binder" and the "right bindee," and hence if we were not able to obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry with regard to bound variable anaphora, for example, it would NOT make any sense to proceed further with our theorizing and experimentation and expect to learn anything in a rigorous way. What is most crucial here is that we want to maximize testability. For that reason, we surely want to have as general a characterization as possible of the "right binder" and the "right bindee." It should also be emphasized that a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry is not the same as, in fact quite different from, a mere contrast. It minimally requires that what is called a *Schema-based prediction (the prediction that any example conforming to a particular Schema is judged completely unacceptable under the specified (type of) interpretation) has survived a rigorous disconfirmation attempt; please see Methodology [42404]. Once one tries to obtain a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry, one will quickly realize how difficult it actually is to do so. I hope that serious researchers will take this as a challenge to them so that they try to come up with a confirmed predicted schematic asymmetry in support of the generalization they maintain/adopt/etc., and more precisely in support of the universal and language-particular hypotheses that adopt/propose as an account of the generalization in question, and that they will at least think twice before continuing to use the relevant generalizations and hypotheses in their further research. That would greatly reduce confusion in the field, in my view. But again, if one's goal is NOT to discover properties of the Computational System of the language faculty by pursuing rigorous testability, more generally, by adopting the hypothetico-deductive method of hypothesis-testing, there may NOT be a clear sense about what constitutes "confusion," to begin with.