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>
|