[Criticism of the method or lost chance?].

This paper is a response to Tress' methodological attempt in this journal (1988). The thesis is presented that his concept of socioempirical markers is based on his false understanding of empirical-statistical thinking with the consequence that: 1) results of empirical studies can not be adequately reported and thus misinterpretation will be promoted 2) his attempt at conveying a systematic complementary relation between operational-functional sciences and hermeneutic-intentional sciences proves to be the answer to an imagine problem. A contra-position is presented here which recognize the basic difference between empirical-statistical and clinical-hermeneutic sciences not only with regard to the methodology but also with regard to goals.