Subject: Re: Kohlberg, etc.
From: Jean-Marc Perreault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:48:13 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 36
Hi Cynthia,
I liked reading your email. I find it really
interesting, and good food for thought. When I think
of science, I think of a process, one that aims at
finding the logic behind something, the answer to a
question.
This being said, I look at the phenomena of
Emotional Intelligence and EMDR as questions being
asked, and I thrive on the debates that come out of
these questions. Simply because some individuals state
that a certain theory is "true" does not mean that the
final answer has been found.
Take EMDR (since I have been studying it
recently). There is no concrete evidence behind it in
temrs of what makes it work. But the litterature does
point toward a positive effect. Now, is that effect
actually due to the eye movement? Maybe not, since
lateral tapping, or lateral auditory stimuli also
work. Is it the stimulation of both sides of the brain
in a continuous rythm? That could very well be. Is it
the placebo effect? That could also be part of the
"answer".
So in reality, we don't yet know. So many say,
"This is not science, because we don't know". But what
is science, if not the pursuit of an answer?
Talking to a physician recently, he was
telling me that there are numerous instances where
certain drugs are used for certain conditions, even
though the processes by which those drugs work are
still unknown. Does it make medicine less of a
science?
Reading on the criticisms about EMDR, I found
it funny that many of them pointed towards the
founder, Francine Shapiro. The criticims were saying
her Ph.D. was not from a recognized institution, that
she used to believe that ONLY eye movements were
working, that there was no evidence that only the eye
movement could work. Because she was wrong about her
idea of only the eyes being effective, then she must
be wrong the whole way. Well, what about being humble,
and willing to modify one's theory? It seems to me
that this is at the core of the scientific mehtod...
My unerstanding of science makes me wonder
about those criticisms. In what way do they discredit
the theroy of EMDR? How does discrediting down the
founder make the argument a good one? Not very
scientific in itself... How does saying that "we don't
have proof that it is the eye movement that makes it
work" discredit the fact that perhaps, EMDR does work,
even if we don't know why?
Anyhow, this being said, I'm still reading about
the whole topic of EMDR. I have not made up my mind
about it's effectiveness yet. I'm simply amused at the
kind of arguments I read saying it's not scientific,
when the arguments themselves are less than scientific
themsleves. Academic perhaps, scientific, far from...
Why not invest the energy in studying it, rather than
trying to discredit it based on academic principles?
My 2 cents fro the day!
Jean-Marc
Well. I think think you're absolutely right about all of it. I especially like what you said about science as a process and medications that work even though we don't know why. It immediately made me think of the difficulty of conveying the difference between a statement like: "There are no known cases of Cruezfeldt-Jakob's disease that were caused by exposure to Chronic wasting disease" and "There are no cases of CJD that were caused by CWD." This is a big issue in Wisconsin right now. There is a huge distinction here. Or - I used to cringe whenever I saw this on the X-Files - "Maybe science just can't explain that." I had to stop screeching at the TV "you mean science can't explain that YET!" because my husband made fun of me too much. Your points about EMDR are good. Just because she might have the mechanism for the treatment success wrong, doesn't mean the treatment is ineffective. Of course I say that because I suspect that's what was happening: If you cosntantly expose yourself to the stimulus (memories) you will habituate towards them. It doesn't make the treatment useless, but then you have to admit that if she's cloaking classical conditioning in all that eye movment hocus pocus - either to make a buck or because she doesn't understand correlational relationships, behavioral theory, or the principle of parsimony, it doesn't exactly do her credit, does it? But yopu're right to point out that that is quite different from evaluating the utility of the approach or even the "truth" of her claims. That shouldn't have anything to do with where she went to grad school. I'm glad this topic is being discussed. I really like seeing everyone else's ideas about art & science, history, etc. Thanks everyone! Have a great Holiday. -Cindy M.
Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D.
Asstistant Professor of Psychology
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater
800 West Main Street
Whitewater, WI 53190
(262) 472-3037 Office
(262) 472-1863
Office Hours - Fall 2002
Mon 10:00-12:00
Tues/Thurs 12:30-2:00
Or by appointment
---You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
