Sophistry versus science: On further efforts to rehabilitate the proximitymodel

There are three principal grounds for comparing directional and proximity t heory-their predictions of evaluation, choice, and party system structure. When the theories have been compared on each of these criteria, the results have favored directional theory. Westholm's defense of the proximity model relies on replacing the formal models he purports to be testing with analy tic models that incorporate subjective party placements. Subjective placeme nts violate the assumptions of both theories and are known to have a proxim ity bias. Further, Westholm focuses exclusively on predictions of choice, r ejecting other grounds for comparing the theories. In our response, we show that the test Westholm devises does not put proxim ity theory at risk. Even in an entirely directional world, a world in which proximity theory is irrelevant to behavior, Westholm's test will still fav or the proximity model. The fact that Westholm pays homage to the idea of f alsifiability, and yet produces only this evidence in support of the proxim ity model, testifies to the power of directional theory for explaining this Norwegian case, and to the gulf between rhetoric and reality in Westholm's defense.