Max Planck, from Wikipedia:
* Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise
durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären,
sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die
heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist.
* A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Light>, but rather
because its opponents eventually die<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Death>, and a
new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
* Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie. Mit einem Bildnis und der von
Max von Laue gehaltenen Traueransprache., Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag,
(Leipzig 1948), p. 22, as translated in Scientific Autobiography and Other
Papers, trans. F. Gaynor (New York, 1949), pp.33-34 (as cited in T.S. Kuhn, The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
* Paraphrased variants:
* Die Wahrheit triumphiert nie, ihre Gegner sterben nur aus.
* Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.
* Science advances one funeral at a time.
But, I've always felt that in organizations it is sufficient for retirement to
happen as opposed to death. That is, progress happens one retirement at a time.
Paul
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:17 PM, Paul Brandon wrote:
Something about paradigm shifts requiring people to die.
It may take a while for the 'old regime' to be replaced.
On Aug 11, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Lilienfeld, Scott O wrote:
Annette et al.:
>From what I know of its history, the Columbia clinical psychology program has
>always been something of an anomaly. It's not in the psychology department (a
>rarity for clinical psychology programs, although not for counseling
>psychology programs), and has little or no formal affiliation with it
>(although there is certainly some collaboration here and there).
>Traditionally, the program has been very psychodynamic and not especially
>research-oriented. The contrast with the Columbia psychology department has
>been strark.
In relatively recent years, however, the Columbia clinical program has racheted
up its standards considerably and made some excellent hires, including my
friend George Bonanno, and several other outstanding clinical scientists who
value evidence-based practice and research. I gave a talk there several years
ago, and was under the impression that the program was still struggling a bit
with its identity, but that it was gradually moving more to a clinical
scientist or at least a scientist-practitioner model of training.
So I was surprised and disheartened by this news story, which seems to imply a
major step backwards. I'm certainly not opposed to rigorous research on the
efficacy of meditation or mindfulness in psychotherapy. But the comments of
several of the participants imply a disconcerting elevation of clinical
intuition as equal to controlled research as a source of evidence. Very
troubling. I don't know more about this new emphasis within the clinical
program, but it does make me wonder just how committed the program is to a
scientific approach to clinical practice.
...Scott
________________________________________
From: Annette Taylor [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re:[tips] Another step forward / backward for Clinical Psychology
Training?
This quote makes it one step backwards:
“If you tell me you know something in your gut, I say that’s hard data,” said
Dr. Miller,
I call on clinical folks to inform me whether the Columbia program is generally
well-respected.
What I wonder is this, if it is well-respected then what does this say about
the state of clinical training?
Sigh.
Annette
Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D.
Professor, Psychological Sciences
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Another step forward / backward for Clinical Psychology Training?
From: "Jim Clark" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:06:45 -0500
X-Message-Number: 1
Hi
A NY Times article on Columbia's clinical psychology program and its
addition of spirituality (mysticism?) to training.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/10/education/columbia-program-merges-therapy-and-spirituality.html?pagewanted=1&src=recg
I especially noted the following for several points:
---------------------------------------------
Lisa J. Miller, the professor who leads the concentration, said she was
training *spiritual psychologists,* who put nonmaterial concepts
like love and connection at the core of their efforts to heal.
*If you tell me you know something in your gut, I say that*s hard
data,* said Dr. Miller, who co-hosted a cable television series on
psychic children in 2008. Science, like intuition, she said, is
*another arrow in our quiver.*
---------------------------------------------
One is emphasis on intuition as "hard data" and the other is the link
in this person's background to "psychic children." And what sort of
psychologist thinks that "love and connection" are elements that have
been ignored by either academic or clinical psychologists, necessitating
the introduction of mysticism to take into account such "nonmaterial
concepts"?
Take care
Jim
Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=19664
or send a blank email to
leave-19664-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=19684
or send a blank email to
leave-19684-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
