Commentary

Good science is logically consistent with many supporting motivations, political and otherwise, at different levels. Just as the commitment to health and well-being of patients can drive medical research, so political commitments to real world impact can serve the cause of research and direct it to issues of human relevance and value. Consider in this context the anti-Nazi investigations of The Authoritarian Personality or efforts (ultimately successful) to persuade people of the irrationality of the nuclear arms race. I interpret Tetlock's first-order question to be whether, in published articles, we are getting good science. If not, political motives may be part of the causal equation, and he cites several cases. However, I also think it is informative to take a different approach. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all individual articles pass Tetlock's test. Then let us move to a higher level and inventory the distribution of an entire body of literature. Are there fair-minded and rigorous evaluations of the full range of theories that have political supporters or consequences? At this higher level, there is cause for alarm

Criminology · Political science · Psychoanalysis · Psychology · Science, Research, and Medicine

• Race and Relevance

  Open Access•K Durrheim, Stephen Mokeki•South African Journal of Psychology•1997

  Add to list

• President Reagan's Counseling

  Lloyd S Etheredge•Political Psychology•1984

  Add to list