Hello,
During my college days, many years ago, I had a biology professor who had
some verry strong opinions on what research was and what it showed. His
opinion was that studies and research projects did not and could not
"prove" a hypothesis. They could "fail to disprove" the question. The
reason being that someone could always come along and design a better,
more precise experiment. Also the very nature of statistics leaves a
shadow of a doubt - the confidence level or p value or whatever. Another
issue was that research in other areas/disciplines could shed new and
different light on questions. He was of the opinion that if the research
failed to disprove the question through many rigorous and reproducible
trial it moved closer to being proven but... It seems that many take
research to be an absolute proof and it should really be otherwise seen as
an indication of potential truth. I believe it is Mr. Siff that often
write to this list about the power of language and how it impacts peoples
perceptions of facts.
I have to go treat a patient now. I hope this adds something positive to
this discussion.
Glenn
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Barrett Dorko wrote:
> Graeme, You say:
> Science is not just science. It is not universal. It changes all the time.
>
> ***I'm afraid this discussion isn't going to amount to much as long as you
> define "science" in this odd and variable manner. Science is a method, a
> way of evaluating evidence in light of the known properties of physics, a
> language through which we communicate our observations and a whole bunch of
> other stuff I won't bore the list with at this time. Are you talking about
> the laws of physics? Surely you don't think these "change all the time," do
> you?***
>
> Then you say:
> Call it a contradiction or advancement your choice, but this happens all
> the time! Science comes up with a theory, years later it is not uncommon
> for it to contradict it!
>
> ***Contradiction and advancement are not the same thing. Knowledge is
> cumulative and scientific methods are the best ones available to insure
> that what we know grows in a fashion that is likely to inspire order and
> progression. To describe the progression of knowledge as just a series of
> contradictions isn't consistent with the history of the advancement of
> knowledge, period.***
>
> Then you say:
> "Would opening your mind not make you a better therapist? It sure has me!"
>
> ***I'd suggest study, not instant, automatic credulity. The former makes
> what we do sensible; the latter blows us around on any wind the latest
> crackpot decides to blow our way. You seem to be happy with that and
> imagine it is less "selfish" a way to practice. I feel it is our
> responsibility to behave otherwise.***
>
> Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
> <http://barrettdorko.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Andrew Tindall
> >Sent: 12 December 2001 09:30
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Core Guru Cognitive Dissonance
> >
> >
> >Dear Graeme,
> >
> >you said
> >"Because their
> >particular science, whether it be the science of chiropractic, osteopathy,
> >physiotherapy etc, is different! Their theories are different, their
> >treatments are different!"
> >
> >If science is really science, it will not contradicy itself. It will be
> >true no matter who it is quoted by!
> >
> >Andrew
>
|