Anna,
I don't see where this discussion became irrational. It is simply the kind
of sharp disagreement that has always driven science. Though some kind of
tea party atmosphere would certainly be preferred by many in therapy, I
would personally like to see some of the tactics of strict scientific
inquiry employed. This would include a willingness to appropriately defend
what you say. I've yet to see a Pilates trained therapist do this, and Mel,
as always, has. He has done this without a shred of personal comment beyond
pointing out that his opponent was wrong about muscle function.
If simple scientific discussion of clinical issues puts people off, maybe
they should consider that at the center of clinical science is a patient
who needs our best effort, not just our ideas of what be nice if only it
were true. If the Pilates people do not enter into this discussion, I will
assume that they can't defend their claims. That's simply the way it works
in science, and anything less is a tea party.
Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
<http://barrettdorko.com>
See "Life on Mars" on my web site for more on this.
.
At 03:20 PM 3/30/00 +1000, you wrote:
>Why is it that, just because it is Mel the marvellous, one cannot have a
>rationale discussion on important issues from which we can all learn or be
>involved. Can't one have an opinion if it differs from Mcsiff's?
>
>This series of comments is sure to put off people wanting to discuss,
>question etc and isn't this what the mailbase is all about???
>
>Cheers,
>
>Anna.
>
>
>
>
>
>Anna Lee
>Principal,
>Work Ready - Industrial Athlete Centre
>Physiotherapist and Occupational Health Consultant
>
>Write to me at [log in to unmask]
>Visit me at www.workready.com.au
>
>Snail mail:
>Suite 3, 82 Enmore Road,
>Newtown NSW 2042
>Australia
>
>Tel: (02) 9519 7436
>Mob: 0412 33 43 98
>Fax: (02) 9519 7439
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2000 5:10
>Subject: Re: PILATES & PHYSIOLOGY
>
>
> > I agree entirely with Dan here.
> >
> > I've done some real dumb things on the Internet, without a doubt, but
> > arguing with Dr. Siff about muscle function is not one of them. He knows,
> > and he's perfectly willing and able to prove that. The Pilates people (and
> > there are more all the time) should be defending their claims in this
> > forum. If Simon is not all that familiar with their claims, let's hear
>from
> > someone who is.
> >
> > Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
> > <http://barrettdorko.com>
> > Also at <http://rehabedge.com>
> > And <http://prorehab.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > At 06:10 PM 3/29/00 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Simon
> > >
> > >Get a life - it was you who stated,
> > >
> > >" I am surprisd that you are slagging off the muscle physiology behind
> > > Pilates when you are unable to adequately describe muscle contraction".
> > >
> > >If you want to make statements like that then expect what you get. In
>fact
> > >Mel's mail (in response to your message which included the above
>statement)
> > >avoided the emotional terminology which you have used.
> > >
> > >
> > >david riddell
> > >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|