ABSTRACT
Whatever their particular science, scientists have a way of getting themselves classified according to some theoretical position. Thus, we call ourselves (or others call us) evolutionsts, or neo-evolutionists, or structural-functionalists, or ideal-typologists, or some other theoretical name. And for the most part we accept these epithets—even with pride—for each of us is proud of his theoretical position; and we can always see the error in the other fellow’s ways. The members of any theoretical “school,” then, are quick to criticize the theoretical efforts of the “opposition.” But this report will attempt to show that critics are often ready to reject whole theories in toto, merely because they cannot accept the assumptions implicit in their presentation. Various seemingly conflicting theories are, in certain fundamental aspects, congruent, or at least complementary, but certainly not in basic conflict.
