Assured by the editor of Theory & Psychology that this will close out the comments and replies on my earlier article (Robinson, 2013a, 2013b), I will consider the constructive and critical points raised by Pettit and Davidson (2014) and by Brock (2014). Brevity is in order here, lest readers be drawn into what finally seems to be a wrangle about nuances.
BrockA. C. (2014). Psychology in the modern sense. Theory & Psychology, 24, 717–722. doi: 10.1177/0959354314535513
2.
DanzigerK. (2013). Psychology and its history. Theory & Psychology, 23, 829–839. doi:10.1177/0959354313502746
3.
PettitM.DavidsonI. (2014). Can the history of psychology have an impact?Theory & Psychology, 24, 709–716. doi: 10.1177/0959354314534005
4.
RobinsonD. N. (2013a). Historiography in psychology: A note on ignorance. Theory & Psychology, 23, 819–828. doi:10.1177/0959354313499426
5.
RobinsonD. N. (2013b). A word more…. Theory & Psychology, 23, 852–854. doi:10.1177/0959354313506797
6.
StockingG. W.Jr. (1965). On the limits of “presentism” and “historicism” in the historiography of the behavioral sciences. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1(3), 211–218.
