Charney’s essay provokes mixed feelings in me. I move between thinking it is a nuanced discussion of the debate over empiricism, and nothing it just might be an extended straw man over a debate that doesn’t really exist.
And If you thought you had a pretty good idea of what a methodology is, Sullivan and Porter should complicate that a bit.
Selzer’s article is closest to my heart as it analyzes the act of writing in great detail. But it also has a sample size of, well, one. How might Charney and S&P view Selzer’s article, in light of their respective theses?