Responds to the comments made by Newman et al., Tryon, and Teo on the current author's original article. In the original article on public skepticism toward psychology, the author delineated eight reasons why many laypersons are dubious of our field's scientific status. The author argued that although some of these sources (e.g., hindsight bias,…

According to the philosophers of science Hempel and Oppenheim (1948), who were cited appropriately by Lilienfeld (see record 2011-12007-001) in his article, scientific explanations serve to answer "why" questions. Clarifying the logic of explanations in the sciences, they developed famously the notion that phenomena can be explained (using…

Not being taken seriously can be an occupational hazard for psychologists, but Lilienfeld's (February-March 2012) thought-provoking article (see record 2011-12007-001) provides a useful framework for thinking about (a) the forms that skepticism about psychological science can take, (b) the roots of such skepticism, and (c) how one might address or…

In the last twenty years, the teaching of reading in Britain has moved away from an interest in how children take delight in, and make meaning of, their literature to a preoccupation with a mechanistic approach to literacy which breaks down texts into bite-sized chunks and fragments reading into a series of isolated skills. Although an expensive,…

Although, by the time of her death, Louise Rosenblatt was highly respected in the fields of composition and reading theory, she did not enjoy the same status among literary theorists. In this article, the author argues that Rosenblatt should be taken seriously as a literary theorist. The author shares her views on Rosenblatt's "Literature as…