Part I assesses the goals of a privileged criminological research method and the standards used to justify it. The goals of discovering crime causes, discovering probabilities of association between crime and other phenomena, and refuting false theories of crime receive special attention. These issues were selected for close examination because of their popularity, their implicit pragmatic bent, and their problematic philosophical foundations that are often discounted by criminologists. The author concludes that there are no logical grounds for "privileging" particular research methods in criminology. No method is demonstrably the most plausible means for discovering crime causes, probabilities of association between crime and other phenomena, false theories of crime, truth about crime, or strategies for controlling crime. Part II begins with a critique of how criminology is currently being practiced. The scientific methods are targeted for analysis. Their privileged status is questioned in view of the conclusions drawn from Part I. In addition, their common epistemological principles are examined for logical, aesthetic, and moral soundness. The issue of how criminology should be practiced is then addressed. Two alternatives are analyzed: a reflexive hermeneutic order and anarchism as an alternative to any form of law and order. Throughout the book, the author suggests that criminological inquiry is more than a matter of logic; questions of aesthetics and morality are just as important. 250 references, chapter notes, an index of names, and a subject index