The fuzzy logical model of perception (FLMP; Massaro, 1998) has been extrem
ely successful at describing performance across a wide range of ecological
domains as well as for a broad spectrum of individuals. An important issue
is whether this descriptive ability is theoretically informative or whether
it simply reflects the model's ability to describe a wider range of possib
le outcomes. Previous tests and contrasts of this model with others have be
en adjudicated on the basis of both a root mean square deviation (RMSD) for
goodness-of-fit and an observed RMSD relative to a benchmark RMSD if the m
odel was indeed correct. We extend the model evaluation by another techniqu
e called Bayes factor (Kass & Raftery, 1995; Myung & Pitt, 1997). The FLMP
maintains its significant descriptive advantage with this new criterion. In
a series of simulations, the RMSD also accurately recovers the correct mod
el under actual experimental conditions. When additional variability was ad
ded to the results, the models continued to be recoverable. In addition to
its descriptive accuracy, RMSD should not be ignored in model testing becau
se it can be justified theoretically and provides a direct and meaningful i
ndex of goodness-of-fit. We also make the case for the necessity of free pa
rameters in model testing. Finally, using Newton's law of universal gravita
tion as an analogy, we argue that it might not be valid to expect a model's
fit to be invariant across the whole range of possible parameter values fo
r the model. We advocate that model selection should be analogous to percep
tual judgment, which is characterized by the optimal use of multiple source
s of information (e.g., the FLMP). Conclusions about models should be based
on several selection criteria.