Well, I disagree. Methods are simple in the extreme compared with the inner workings of string theory. And I think ANY intelligent person can pick up the top-rated journals and find out which theories/approaches/techniques have the backing of empiricism. Perhaps psychologists, eager to be seen as scientists, over-estimate the difficulty associated with empirical psychology.
Nevertheless, most of your comments seem to center around motivation. That is, if I don't care about scientific psychology per se, then I wouldn't be interested in the results of same. But I don't think this is true. Like I said, I don't particularly care about carpentry (except maybe Japanese joinery, but I digress). However, if I want to build a bench that will last I will use the RESULTS of 'scientific' carpentry. My motiviation as a client caring clinician would be the client and my own expertise and growth. My clients needs would drive me to find the best possible solutions for their problems. Because I don't particularly care about scientific psychology per se, does not mean I don't value the results. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
