It is at the rigor level that most criticism is lodged against alternative ways of knowing (see for example Berkenkotter, 1993; Grinnell et al., 1994; Thyer, 1986,1989). Most of the argument is in response to the positivistic assumptions about what is real and knowable. The rigor criticisms, then, are extensions of the paradigmatic/philosophical discussions where there can be no conclusion because there probably can be no consensus. If Kuhn (1970) is correct, the criticisms and cross-criticisms, the battle and backlash, will continue until a new paradigm reigns as “good science.”