In her reaction, Hendrika Vande Kemp ( 1987) joins other critics of psychology in arguing for a new psychology. The authors believe, however, that psychology developed as a science because it was productive and that more subjective methods will gain respectability only through similar productivity. In her critique, Vande Kemp creates a circular argument by suggesting that the authors' position Jacks a proper historicaVphilosophical perspective, and she underestimates the sophistication of those with whom she disagrees. Finally, the authors disagree that there is no point in arguing with the most conservative anti-psychologists, since they may be having a disproportionate influence on public perceptions of psychology.
Foster, James D. and Ledbetter, Mark F., "Wheat and Tares: Responding to Vande Kemp and other Revisionists" (1987). Faculty Publications - Grad School of Clinical Psychology. 105.