At 6:57 PM -0600 11/26/02, Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D. wrote:
The effectiveness data is for a package with many components; some of them standard behavioral techniques that by themselves can count for its effectiveness.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".
No one has done the type of study necessary to tease apart the components to establish which are actually necessary; which may actually be detrimental.
It's how we pursue that answer, by making verifiable predictions and testing them under controlled conditions.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?
Sometimes!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?
Often drugs are used "off label" (for purposes that the FDA has not approved because there is no evidence that these drugs are safe and effective for that purpose).
When the testing is done, the drugs may turn out to be ineffective or worse, despite the fact that clinicians feel that they were effective.
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?
That is always possible, but science places the burden of proof on the person presenting the hypothesis -- we then evaluate the data presented to support it.
This includes some assumptions about the competence of the person collecting and analyzing that data.
That's why replication.
Limited resources.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?
One cannot study everything.
If existing and demonstrated scientific principle cast doubt on an hypothesis, and the competence of the individual presenting and supporting the hypothesis is questionable, it may be more productive to simply point this out and spend one's resources on something else.
--
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
