| Abstract: | This paper is a response to criticisms, by Peterson (1995) and others, of positions I took in an earlier article, “Manifesto for a science of clinical psychology” (McFall, 1991). I had argued that professional practice and training in clinical psychology must be governed by a scientific epistemology, and had outlined some of the specific reasons and implications. In this article, I attempt to correct misinterpretations of my previous arguments, to clarify ambiguities, and to fill any serious omissions. The fundamental points of the original Manifesto are defended, buttressed, and extended. In response to issues highlighted by the criticisms, two new corollaries are added to those offered in the original article. These summarize the arguments presented in this paper, with special emphasis on the essential role of skepticism as the best protection against the corruption of knowledge and practice in psychology. |
