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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of politics 1956-08, Vol.18 (3), p.565-570 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 |