Abstract
The title of Shelby Hunt's article (1989) is steeped in irony, given what follows in his text. His effort produces a caricature of reason and a surprising misunderstanding of the nature of reification in the social sciences. His is no critique; it is a diatribe pure and simple. I will not respond to Hunt's article on a line-by-line basis. That would be too depressing an exercise. Rather, I will address what appear to be major allegations. All but his last two, his rigor-relevance issue and his reification-realism issue, are dispensed with summarily because they are superficial.

This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit: