Barrett,
Thanks for your replies, the article you sent, and phone call. Always good
to hear from you. However, I am not going to get into a verbal tug-of-war
with you. I meant every word I said. The metaphor I used, and the words
journey, and open-mindedness are perfectly clear to me. I am sorry that you
are having difficulty with them. If you want to label me a post-modernist
that OK as well. If that means I am against egoism, power, control,
domination, and manipulation that has been perpetuated by western
philosophy for the past century - then that is me!!
I don't think there is anything wrong with reductionist thinking. I just do
not think it is the only way.Just like I don't think that quantatative
research, RCT's, or evidence-based research is the only way.
I got into this frey to suggest that there are other ways we need to look
at the things we say that do not work (based on traditional research), when
in actuality there are those practitioners who know they work but are
unsure why. That's all.
I bow to the Imrie article. He has a point that I had not heard before.
However, the Sampson article is not worth debating. I appreciate his
viewpoints; however, he is very set within his egoistic ways and would not
consider other possibilities if it bit him in the posterior. The first
paragraph on page 110 telegraphs that message loud and clear. But that is
OK. I particularly do not agree with his interpretation of post-modernism
(he would not particularly agree with mine as well). That too is OK!
What I do with my students is expose them to all possibilities - there is
good science, bad science, and science that we have not discovered yet. Use
the good, avoid the bad, and look forward to the other possibilities that
will appear with new discoveries.
This is enough for me.
Rege
At 02:53 PM 8/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Rege,
>
>You said "My reference to our enculturated (socialized)use of
>Newtonian/Cartesian systems was meant as a metaphor for the reductionist
>and dualistic way we approach many of the phenomenon we see in science,
>medicine and physical therapy. Just suggesting a change in the mind set,
>that's all."
>
>I find it hard to believe that you meant this as a metaphor, especially
>since the alternative physics is by definition even more reductionist.
>Anyway, since when is reductionist thinking a bad thing?
>
>The rest of your reply is unresponsive unless you think that vague
>references to the "journey" and "an open mind" are supposed to mean
>something. These words and phrases are common to postmodern thought, and I
>can only continue to assume that's where you're coming from. Given what you
>now know about the "15%" figure regarding evidence are you going to
>continue to use this as a justification for practices that begin with no
>evidence or an impossible premise? Are you going to offer your students the
>commentary that refutes this before they make the same mistake?
>
>I know these are hard questions and it may sound as though I'm taking you
>to task. Perhaps I am, but every teacher has a responsibility to justify
>what they say and to say it with clarity. In our profession there's been
>far too little of that.
>
>I look forward to your reply now that you have this and my last post on the
>subject.
>
>Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
><http://barrettdorko.com>
>
>
Rege Turocy, DHCE, PT
Assistant Professor
Department of Physical Therapy
Rangos School of Health Sciences
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
412/396-5545
|