I am far less critical of the softOriginally Posted by jvkohl
science approach than others, and am not advocating that any contributer to this Forum become a shoe salesperson. On
the other hand, I do not wish to engage them in debate about my ego after they have repeatedly commented negatively
on my hard science approach.
“Since the null hypothesis refutation racket is “steady work” and has the
merits of an automated research grinding device, scholars who are pardonably devoted to making more money and
keeping their jobs so that they can pay off the mortgage and buy hamburgers for the wife and kids are unlikely to
contemplate with equanimity a criticism that says that their whole procedure is scientifically feckless and that
they should quit doing it and do something else. In the soft areas of psychology that might, in some cases, mean
that they should quit the academy and make an honest living selling shoes, which people of bookish temperament
naturally do not want to do.”
Full text
at:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~pemeehl/144WhySummaries.pdf
PE Meehl has other works that attest to
the number of doctoral students he has taught, and that no one ever told him--even anonymously--that they thought
his ego was the problem.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks