No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
One responds to Lee Benson’s conversational gambits with prudence and to his considered formal arguments with great care. If, as in the present circumstance, he is making a “statement,” trepidation is in order. His revolutionary zeal is as formidable as the scholarly understanding which lies behind his advocacy. Moreover, whenever I am tempted to disagree with the manifest content of a Benson argument, I hesitate to express that disagreement because of an experientially based apprehension that I may be totally missing the latent truths that lie within the argument. However, as I recall the SSHA meeting where the presidential address was first presented, I then had the temerity to offer a rather all embracing disagreement with his diagnoses and assessments, if not his prescriptions, where the state of the health of the social sciences is concerned. Emboldened by the realization that I am on record with a public demurral, I will now proceed to restate the nature of my disagreement.
1 Thomas, Lewis, “Hubris in Science?” Science, 200 (June 1978), 1459–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
2 Przeworski, Adam and Teune, Henry, Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.