Hi I'm hard-pressed to know whether my leg is being pulled or not, but I'll take the bait anyway. Mike's comments are preceded by MS, mine by JC. I've taken Mike's last point first.
MS: Furthermore, I think any fairly intelligent clinician can pick up some top-rated clinical research journals and figure out what clinical issues are supported or not supported by the research. And that without giving a hoot about scientific psychology. After all, it aint the inner workings of string theory. JC: It might as well be string theory if one has not learned about scientific methods and tools. And why would one bother picking top-rated clinical journals if one did not give a hoot about scientific psychology? Or would one even be able to discriminate between pop and professional psychology? And the evidence (at one time anyway) was that clinicians tend NOT to pick up and read journals to govern their practice. Why bother when they can just talk to colleagues (who don't read journals either) and when they don't give a hoot about scientific psychology anyway? MS: I think perhaps that being a reasonable and rational person is being confused with the science of psychology. To me, one needn't care about scientific psychology and still be an excellent evidenced based therapist. JC: Again, why would one bother with evidenced-based practice if one didn't care about scientific psychology? More on reason and science below. MS: For example, Gerald Peterson in his post said "In the Stanovich book he argues that psychologists should offer the public two guarantees: First that claims are based on established scientific findings in psychology, and second, that applications/treatments have been developed and tested/evaluated scientifically." Ok. I think that is a good idea. But, I think I can do that without caring about psychology as a science. In fact, I can do that without any knowledge of the scientific method at all. JC: But why would you bother doing it if you did not care about psychology as a science? And how does one discriminate between well-founded and quack treatments "without any knowledge of the scientific method at all." MS: Without the empirical training will I be at the mercy of the authors of the study? Of course (that is, what is beyond the bounds of an intelligent rational person being able to figure out). But we all are, because we don't have the time to investigate it ourselves and we fully depend on peer-review and the status of the journal/lab where the research comes from. JC: But Mike that assumes these things (peer review, status of journal/lab) actually matter to us. Difficult for me to see why they would matter if I don't give a hoot about scientific psychology. I'm sensing a theme here. MS: And note, we are not saying that the students don't have any training, just that they don't have any particular interest. Also, Stanovich's book and others like it are books about rational thinking not about the scientific method. JC: But above you seemed to be saying that they don't need any training? For example, you wrote "without the empirical training will I be at the mercy ...", which appears to imply they don't have the empirical training? Or am I missing something? With respect to rational thinking and scientific method, one of the ways to think about science and its tools is as a repertoire of techniques for overcoming some of the native limitations of human cognition. Some are pretty obvious, such as Illusory Correlation and calculating a correlation coefficient (or chi2 or t-test or whatever). I would say there is much overlap between the domains covered by rational thinking and scientific method(s). MS: Honestly, if we had to wait for the results of experiments to catch up with life, we wouldn't be getting out of bed in the morning. JC: We're not talking about getting out of bed in the morning. We're talking about presenting oneself as an expert at helping people to overcome their personal difficulties. Moreover, it is one thing to "do your best" recognizing the limits of your knowledge and perhaps doing it in a tentative way and in a way that allows for evaluation (i.e., scientifically) and to push full speed ahead certain that you have solved the problem of the Holy Grail, and leaving no room for doubt or seeking confirmation. And if you're in the latter camp, of course, you're not likely to be seeking further information from clinical science since you're not missing anything important. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
