Wheat and Tares: Responding to Vande Kemp and other Revisionists
In her reaction, Hendrika Vande Kemp(1987) joins other critics of psychology in arguing for a new psychology. The authors believe, however, that psychology developed as a science because it was productive and that more subjective methods will gain respectability only through similar productivity. In...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1987
|
| In: |
Journal of psychology and theology
Year: 1987, Volume: 15, Issue: 1, Pages: 27-30 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | In her reaction, Hendrika Vande Kemp(1987) joins other critics of psychology in arguing for a new psychology. The authors believe, however, that psychology developed as a science because it was productive and that more subjective methods will gain respectability only through similar productivity. In her critique, Vande Kemp creates a circular argument by suggesting that the authors’ position lacks a proper historical/philosophical perspective, and she underestimates the sophistication of those with whom she disagrees. Finally, the authors disagree that there is no point in arguing with the most conservative anti-psychologists, since they may be having a disproportionate influence on public perceptions of psychology. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2328-1162 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/009164718701500104 |
