> > There is no whining here, there's just appropriate indignation that a > > study that isn't relevant to normative grief work and clients/patients > > is inexplicably supposed to "challenge" and even change that work. > > > In order to properly challenge, one must have enough knowledge of the > > issues in the first place. > > Otherwise a lot of time is wasted on ignorance. > Jim is missing my point in posting that study. It's not that Maciejewski > et al is particularly good; it's not. It's that it seems to be the only > attempt to empirically investigate these alleged stages of grief, which > were based originally on nothing more that anecdote. At least Jim hasn't > provided us with any (and we've asked).
So basically even though it's a poor study, hey, it's data! > The proper position of scientists to proposals of this nature (and I'm > not talking about things such as the theory of relativity which are > founded on prior experimentation, logic, and mathematical rigour) is that > one should not accept such speculations in the absence of evidence. Fine, but since when is 20 years of professional experience working with bereaved individuals not evidence? Is it rigorously obtained? No. But I don't understand why it's any less valuable than one empirical study that is supposed to change how we conceptualize the initial psychological and emotional reactions of grief....when that study failed to include people in that initial part of the grieving process. > I > find it disturbing that the position of a scientist-practioner is that > the Kubler-Ross description must be right until proved wrong, rather > than asking where the evidence is for it in the first place. I find it disturbing that any evidence that doesn't get published in a journal seems to be discounted. For the record, I never said Kubler-Ross' description must be right until proved wrong. > This was Freud's method--engage in wild speculation, and then assert that > it must be true, because he said it. And we know what the ultimate > scientific value of Freud's assertions has turned out to be. I think you're mischaracterizing Freud to some extent. But I'll let someone else be the jury. > Jim doesn't need evidence to know the Kubler-Ross stages are true. Mischaracterizations abound here. > That's not science, it's religion. Perhaps not conicidentally, Jim and I > disagree on that topic too. More is the pity. Jim G --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
