The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace

A notably unsystematic sample of professional opinion at the 1955 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, conducted in a perfectly haphazard (as distinguished from random) fashion, led the author to the qualitative conclusion — unsullied by a single statistic — that there is wide agre...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of politics 1956-08, Vol.18 (3), p.565-570
1. Verfasser: Prothro, James W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 570
container_issue 3
container_start_page 565
container_title The Journal of politics
container_volume 18
creator Prothro, James W.
description A notably unsystematic sample of professional opinion at the 1955 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, conducted in a perfectly haphazard (as distinguished from random) fashion, led the author to the qualitative conclusion — unsullied by a single statistic — that there is wide agreement in the Association with the view that attempts at methodological improvements are fruitless at best and pernicious imports from Schools of Education at worst. The reader has, I trust, noted that the observations (I avoid the use of the word “survey”) which underlie this conclusion are highly unsystematic, if not downright sloppy. Attention is explicitly directed to this desideratum, however, in order to avoid an early loss of the readers for whom these comments are offered. These readers constitute that significant portion of the profession who were found to endorse the general point of view of Jack in the dialogue reported below.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/2127263
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_2307_2127263</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_2307_2127263</cupid><jstor_id>2127263</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>2127263</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-f5bdbe3b1de6777946a471c46075f89825b157024ea649bcb64d68f3a2350f583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplj01Lw0AQhhdRMFbxD3jYm3iI7vdu9FSKVaHagvUcdjezTULbyG4U_PdGWvTgMDCH9-FhXoTOKblmnOgbRplmih-gjAplciaJOUQZIYzl3FB1jE5SaskwqhAZulvWgF-6bYJh8bRZ1T2ef0LEr76Bbd-ExuNn6OuuusVjvFiDxaGLeAHWwyk6Cnad4Gx_R-hter-cPOaz-cPTZDzLPROsz4N0lQPuaAVKa10IZYWmXiiiZTCFYdJRqQkTYJUonHdKVMoEbhmXJEjDR-hy5_WxSylCKN9js7Hxq6Sk_Olc7jsP5MWObFPfxV_sL77ai-zGxaZaQdl2H3E7PP9P9Q3-TVxd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Prothro, James W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Prothro, James W.</creatorcontrib><description>A notably unsystematic sample of professional opinion at the 1955 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, conducted in a perfectly haphazard (as distinguished from random) fashion, led the author to the qualitative conclusion — unsullied by a single statistic — that there is wide agreement in the Association with the view that attempts at methodological improvements are fruitless at best and pernicious imports from Schools of Education at worst. The reader has, I trust, noted that the observations (I avoid the use of the word “survey”) which underlie this conclusion are highly unsystematic, if not downright sloppy. Attention is explicitly directed to this desideratum, however, in order to avoid an early loss of the readers for whom these comments are offered. These readers constitute that significant portion of the profession who were found to endorse the general point of view of Jack in the dialogue reported below.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3816</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2508</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/2127263</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Democracy ; Nonsense ; Political philosophy ; Scientific method ; Views and Opinions</subject><ispartof>The Journal of politics, 1956-08, Vol.18 (3), p.565-570</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Southern Political Science Association 1956</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2127263$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2127263$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Prothro, James W.</creatorcontrib><title>The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace</title><title>The Journal of politics</title><addtitle>J of Pol</addtitle><description>A notably unsystematic sample of professional opinion at the 1955 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, conducted in a perfectly haphazard (as distinguished from random) fashion, led the author to the qualitative conclusion — unsullied by a single statistic — that there is wide agreement in the Association with the view that attempts at methodological improvements are fruitless at best and pernicious imports from Schools of Education at worst. The reader has, I trust, noted that the observations (I avoid the use of the word “survey”) which underlie this conclusion are highly unsystematic, if not downright sloppy. Attention is explicitly directed to this desideratum, however, in order to avoid an early loss of the readers for whom these comments are offered. These readers constitute that significant portion of the profession who were found to endorse the general point of view of Jack in the dialogue reported below.</description><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Nonsense</subject><subject>Political philosophy</subject><subject>Scientific method</subject><subject>Views and Opinions</subject><issn>0022-3816</issn><issn>1468-2508</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1956</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNplj01Lw0AQhhdRMFbxD3jYm3iI7vdu9FSKVaHagvUcdjezTULbyG4U_PdGWvTgMDCH9-FhXoTOKblmnOgbRplmih-gjAplciaJOUQZIYzl3FB1jE5SaskwqhAZulvWgF-6bYJh8bRZ1T2ef0LEr76Bbd-ExuNn6OuuusVjvFiDxaGLeAHWwyk6Cnad4Gx_R-hter-cPOaz-cPTZDzLPROsz4N0lQPuaAVKa10IZYWmXiiiZTCFYdJRqQkTYJUonHdKVMoEbhmXJEjDR-hy5_WxSylCKN9js7Hxq6Sk_Olc7jsP5MWObFPfxV_sL77ai-zGxaZaQdl2H3E7PP9P9Q3-TVxd</recordid><startdate>19560801</startdate><enddate>19560801</enddate><creator>Prothro, James W.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Southern Political Science Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19560801</creationdate><title>The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace</title><author>Prothro, James W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-f5bdbe3b1de6777946a471c46075f89825b157024ea649bcb64d68f3a2350f583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1956</creationdate><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Nonsense</topic><topic>Political philosophy</topic><topic>Scientific method</topic><topic>Views and Opinions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Prothro, James W.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>The Journal of politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Prothro, James W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of politics</jtitle><addtitle>J of Pol</addtitle><date>1956-08-01</date><risdate>1956</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>565</spage><epage>570</epage><pages>565-570</pages><issn>0022-3816</issn><eissn>1468-2508</eissn><abstract>A notably unsystematic sample of professional opinion at the 1955 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, conducted in a perfectly haphazard (as distinguished from random) fashion, led the author to the qualitative conclusion — unsullied by a single statistic — that there is wide agreement in the Association with the view that attempts at methodological improvements are fruitless at best and pernicious imports from Schools of Education at worst. The reader has, I trust, noted that the observations (I avoid the use of the word “survey”) which underlie this conclusion are highly unsystematic, if not downright sloppy. Attention is explicitly directed to this desideratum, however, in order to avoid an early loss of the readers for whom these comments are offered. These readers constitute that significant portion of the profession who were found to endorse the general point of view of Jack in the dialogue reported below.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.2307/2127263</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3816
ispartof The Journal of politics, 1956-08, Vol.18 (3), p.565-570
issn 0022-3816
1468-2508
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_2307_2127263
source JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Democracy
Nonsense
Political philosophy
Scientific method
Views and Opinions
title The Nonsense Fight Over Scientific Method: A Plea for Peace
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T12%3A56%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Nonsense%20Fight%20Over%20Scientific%20Method:%20A%20Plea%20for%20Peace&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20politics&rft.au=Prothro,%20James%20W.&rft.date=1956-08-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=565&rft.epage=570&rft.pages=565-570&rft.issn=0022-3816&rft.eissn=1468-2508&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/2127263&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E2127263%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_2307_2127263&rft_jstor_id=2127263&rfr_iscdi=true