Psycho-Babble Psychology | about psychological treatments | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: scientific research

Posted by fires on July 26, 2004, at 17:52:18

In reply to scientific research » fires, posted by pegasus on July 26, 2004, at 17:00:30

> Hey fires,
>
> A while back I asked you not to post to me, and I said I wouldn't post to you. But the way things are going lately on the board gives me more confidence in myself and in you. So, I'd like to rescind my ban.
>
> I disagree below with some things that you said, so I'm nervous that I'll get attacked. Please know that I'm replying to you with good intentions, which are to respectfully disagree with a couple of your conclusions, and to amicably explain why I disagree. I welcome explanations of why you think my reasoning and conclusions may be wrong.
> >
> > Personal testimonies of any medical/therapy treatment don't cut it with me. I'm open minded, but I don't have a hole in my head. :)
> >
> > Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> >
> > Also, the MPD people can't refute the science supporting the scientific MPD research. They can only say that their experiences override science.
> >
>
> I think you have a lot more faith in science than I do! Speaking as a scientist, I've read lots of scientific research that has been later refuted when new evidence comes to light.
>
> Moreover, I think that a lot of things don't lend themselves well to traditional scientific study. Which doesn't mean that they aren't real phenomena. Therapy is a prime example. Love is another.
>
> The problem with therapy is that evaluating it's effectiveness requires considering the personal subjective experience of the client. Personal subjective experience isn't the type of thing that is easy to quantify, and therefore, traditional scientific research methods don't work well to examine it. Here's a link about this that you may find interesting: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/gordon.html
>
> That's just one link. This type of discussion is all over the internet. If you want more references, let me know.
>
> Personally, I believe that people's experiences can override the results of scientific research. There is so much that we don't know yet, and scientific results are so dependent on the theories that we have, and the questions that we ask. I believe that we often ask the wrong questions or ask questions in the wrong way, and so get "scientific" results that don't actually reflect reality very well. Especially in terms of wiggly things like therapy and mental health. In my opinion, listening to people's experience is not only valid, but essential, as a check on relying too heavily on the flawed system of scientific research. These experiences may even inform future research that will someday show that what they've experienced is explainable. Or not.
>
> Also, I want to explain that I am not anti-science. I think scientific research has contributed a lot, and I've participated in a fair amount of it myself. I just also believe that it is limited, and easily misinterpreted.
>
> pegasus
>

Wow. Long article -- which I admit I only skimmed. First, If things don't lend themselves to "traditional scientific study" they certainly won't be any more easily studied by any other type of "science."

To quote Michael Shermer, a wel known skeptic:

"The second popular notion that skeptics are closed-minded to certain beliefs comes from a misunderstanding of skepticism and science. Skeptics and scientists are not necessarily “closed-minded” (though they may be since they are human). They may once have been open-minded to a belief, but when the evidence came up short they rejected it. There are already enough legitimate mysteries in the universe for which evidence provides scientists fodder for their research. To take the time to consider “unseen” or “unknown” mysteries is not always practical. When the non-skeptic says, “you’re just closed-minded to the unknown forces of the universe,” the skeptic responds: “We’re still trying to understand the known forces of the universe.”

Re: Listening to patient's experiences. Yes we should listen,but we don't need to except the experiences without proof. Examples: People have claimed to have been abducted by aliens. People have claimed to have been cured of all types of illnesses by "faith healers." Some say that they can communicate with the dead.

Imagine if therapists blindly excepted the tales of paranoid schizophrenics!

I'm out of time. BTW, you don't have to say that you respectfully disagree with me. I asssume that all disagreements with me are respectful until proven otherwise.

bye



Share
Tweet  

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Framed

poster:fires thread:368898
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20040723/msgs/370857.html