{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024051803885291396, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009250693802035153, 'mean_word_length': 5.078651685393258, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Science and Superstition in Special Education

• Recently, special educators have been cautioned against the wholesale adoption of databased instructional procedures on the grounds that such procedures are inherently mechanistic and thus deleterious to the process of educating exceptional children. As a case in point, Heshusius (1982) used the occasion of a discussion of the advocacy dilemma (i.e., the apparent role conflict faced by special educators who try to serve both as child advocates and professional employees of a school) to set forth a so-called holistic world view "as a better model to guide special education practices for the future" (p. 6). While we agree with the author that a mechanical-bureaucratic approach is inappropriate, we also reject the holistic model as a useful alternative. Specifically, we argue that this philosophy of science is specious; that arguments in support of this position are highly suspect; and that the implications of the holistic model pose a serious threat to the rationale for defending continued funding of Public Law 94-142.