SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

Henrique's thoughtful effort (this issue) to define psychology suffers from at least three shortcomings: (a) “psychology” is almost certainly an inherently fuzzy concept that resists precise definition; (b) attempts to define psychology are likely to hamper rather than foster consilience across scientific disciplines; and (c) Henriques incorrectly diagnoses the cause of the scientist–practitioner gap and hence offers an incorrect prescription. The sources of this gap lie not in intractable definitional disputes, but in fundamentally different approaches to acquiring knowledge. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol.