Re: The scientific status of PCP

W Ramsay (
Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:07:36 +0100

Lois Shawver writes:

>Brian Gaines:
>Pardon me for coming in rather late in the discussion, but I would like
>help understanding why you say that science-religion cannot serve as a
>bipolar construct. Are you sayin that this would not make an adequate
>construct in the Kelly tradition? Couldn't we do a rep test and see that
>someone had a personal construct that distinguished "science" from
>"religion"? Or are you using the term "construct" in a different way?
>What do you mean here, for example? I'm not an expert on Kelly, but this
>doesn't sound like Kelly, to me:
>> Some aspects of science and some aspects of religion may be construed
>> on each pole of these three constructs. They are not bipolar unless one
>> very clearly defines those aspects.
>..Lois Shawver

With you, Lois. Much of what Brian says in this posting sems to me to
violate the individuality corollary. I admit it's not hard to do, and Brian
is not the only, and not always a, transgressor, but the frequency with
which it seems to happen on the list bothers me, as a peripheral PCPer.

In war, the first casualty is the individuality corollary?



Bill Ramsay,
Dept. of Educational Studies,
University of Strathclyde,
Jordanhill Campus,
G13 1PP,

'phone: +44 (0)141 950 3364
'fax: +44 (0)141 950 3367