Richard J. McNally, Department of Psychology, Harvard University.
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by NIMH grant RO1 MH61268-01A1. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard J. McNally, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. E-mail: email@example.com.
The commentators believe that the concept of pseudoscience is useful for criticizing questionable claims and practices in clinical psychology. In contrast, I believe that evidential warrant (or lack thereof) provides a more straightforward means for criticizing them. Attempting to diagnose pseudoscience is an unnecessary and roundabout exercise that ultimately boils down to questions of evidential warrant, anyway. Therefore, rather than asking “Is this claim pseudoscientific?” we can simply ask “What is the evidence for this claim?”