title: Political goals versus scientific truths: a response to Jackson (2003).
abstract: Three fundamental issues separate Jackson's (2003) methodological views from mine. One, whereas he believes an absolute moral view can prevail in a democracy, I assume moral pluralism is an inevitable byproduct of an open society. Two, Jackson feels that psychology can identify a correct moral position, whereas I postulate natural science psychology is only capable of revealing the empirical consequences of competing social policies and their moral implications. Three, Jackson espouses a politically active psychology that from my perspective is antithetical to a democratic and scientific ethic. In sum, Jackson's coupling of science with political advocacy will lead to a mistrust of psychology that will deny a democracy the opportunity to base its social policies on reliable psychological information.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 93108, USA.
authors.forename: Howard H
authors.initials: HH
authors.lastname: Kendler
mesh_terms: D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D009014:Morals; D011057:Politics; D011584:Psychology / Q000266:history*; D012586:Science / Q000266:history* / Q000379:methods*; D014342:Truth Disclosure / Q000941:ethics*; D014481:United States