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...
| Autores principales: | ; |
|---|---|
| Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Gargar...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publishing
1987
|
| En: |
Journal of psychology and theology
Año: 1987, Volumen: 15, Número: 1, Páginas: 27-30 |
| Acceso en línea: |
Presumably Free Access Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | No electrónico
|
| Sumario: | 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 |
| Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/009164718701500104 |