On 3 Mar 2007 at 18:26, Dr. Jim G. wrote in his inimicable style: > > Is anyone on this list going to make a paradigm shift in their > professional endeavors based on one study? > > Silly me, I thought it was important to replicate a study before I > permanently alter my approach to something as difficult and sometimes > delicate as grief work.
And Marc Turner commented similarly: >Or they realized that the results of one study do not signify the > "death" of the stages approach to which Jim Clark. asked the searching question: "I would have thought the appropriate response, Jim G, would have been to cite all the studies that confirm the model you are basing your treatment on (assuming that is the correct thing to read into your message). Otherwise, why are grief counsellors doing it that way in the first place?" Ooh, a doubles match. I like that. I have little doubt that both Dr. Jimmy G. and Marc T. have it exactly backward, while (I modestly assert) both Jim C. and I have it exactly right. A wordy syllogism: IF, as seems likely, Kubler-Ross proposed her stages of grief on the basis of nothing more than some anecdotes based on personal experience, and if, as Maciejewski et al (2007) assert, no study has yet explicitly tested her proposal, THEN people were wrong to enthusiastically endorse her stages simply because they appeared plausible. Maciejewski et al did explicitly test her theory and (discounting a few weasel words) found it wanting. Thus I argue (and assume Jim C. agrees) it makes no sense to claim that this unsupported proposal must continue to stand until disconfirmed by further studies. The onus is on those who believe the stage description has merit to provide the support that at present appears sadly lacking. Perhaps I need to be clearer. What Dr. Jim and Marc appear to be saying is that if they make the unsupported claim that the moon is made of green cheese, and I provide evidence that it's really made of Camembert, they are still entitled to claim that it's made of green cheese until someone does another study. Science doesn't work like that. If you propose something in the absence of evidence, and someone disproves it, that's it baby. The onus is on you to come up with supporting evidence, not on the debunker to find more contrary stuff. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 0C8 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
