A Response to Philip Tetlock's Critique
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11638262 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ralph K White (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1995 |
| Volume | 16 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 663-663 |
| Publication date | 1995-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Political Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-895X • E-ISSN: 1467-9221 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/3792237 |
| OpenAlex | W2335300911 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 11 |
Philip Tetlock says my research program fails to pass basic logical and methodological requirements for 'good science.' (1994, p. 511). In my discussion of minimal deterrence I ceased to be a political psychologist in any sense of the word (p. 511). My writing treats arguments and evidence in a flagrant fashion (p. 575). Such work can lead to a scientific hell (note his title). Coming from a scientist as respected as Philip Tetlock, such words are devastating. How true are they
Criminology · Psychoanalysis · Sociology · Intelligence, Security, War Strategy · Psychology · Social Psychology
Détente and confrontation
An alternative to war or surrender.
Perception and Misperception in International Politics
The Rivals
Russian Roulette
Misperception in the Arab‐Israeli Conflict
Socialism" and "Capitalism
Misperception and the Causes of War
Oh, Ye of Little Faith
Hitler, Roosevelt, and the nature of war propaganda
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |