Boats Against the Current
Abstract
<p>Our critics have resorted to “knowledge destruction” arguments (cf. Andrews & Wormith, 1989 ; Leschied, Jaffe, Andrews, & Gendreau, 1991 ) in order to dismiss the empirical evidence we presented on the effects of prison life. Basically, these types of arguments are founded in theoreticism, which is characterized by an a priori knowledge of the truth. Positivism is scorned and phenomenology embraced. Knowledge is political, partial, relative, socially constructed, and accepted according to its personal value.</p> <p>Many of Roberts and Jackson’s comments, unfortunately, typify the above. Witness their recourse to knowledge generated from “centuries of human experience,” which they can tap into while we apparently cannot given that we are bound by the strictures of rational empiricism and its methodological requirements. They require, as ultimate proof, a special kind of evidence that goes beyond the boundaries “generated by contemporary social science research.” They themselves, moreover, are not limited in their choice of evidence. For “theoreticists,” there also appears to be both acceptable and unacceptable positivism as they appeal to information on noninmates (we were remiss by studying just incarcerates), pornography, and the individual case. As to the latter, no matter how meritorious the case may be, it has