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...
| Auteurs: | ; |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Sage Publishing
1987
|
| Dans: |
Journal of psychology and theology
Année: 1987, Volume: 15, Numéro: 1, Pages: 27-30 |
| Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/009164718701500104 |