Comments on Articles by Nelson, Slife, Reber, and Richardson
I have only tried to deepen our understanding of the issues surrounding the secular assumptions of much current psychology by doing four things: One, pointing out how the drive toward secularism or naturalism in psychological method is supported upon much broader assumptions about cognitive authorit...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| 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
2006
|
| Dans: |
Journal of psychology and theology
Année: 2006, Volume: 34, Numéro: 3, Pages: 266-271 |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | I have only tried to deepen our understanding of the issues surrounding the secular assumptions of much current psychology by doing four things: One, pointing out how the drive toward secularism or naturalism in psychological method is supported upon much broader assumptions about cognitive authority in our intellectual culture; Two, explaining a concept of knowledge that does not start from biases about possible subject matters or methods; Three, discussing some ways in which a “hermeneutical” approach in psychological method needs to be strengthened; Four, clarifying some ways in which misunderstandings and ambiguities of “objective” and “subjective” can lead to confusions about the possibilities of a psychological method that does not assume secularism. My intent is to be supportive of the intellectual thrusts developed in the articles. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2328-1162 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of psychology and theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/009164710603400309 |