Hi Cynthia,
I liked reading your email. I find it really
interesting, and good food for thought. When I think
of science, I think of a process, one that aims at
finding the logic behind something, the answer to a
question.
This being said, I look at the phenomena of
Emotional Intelligence and EMDR as questions being
asked, and I thrive on the debates that come out of
these questions. Simply because some individuals state
that a certain theory is "true" does not mean that the
final answer has been found.
Take EMDR (since I have been studying it
recently). There is no concrete evidence behind it in
temrs of what makes it work. But the litterature does
point toward a positive effect. Now, is that effect
actually due to the eye movement? Maybe not, since
lateral tapping, or lateral auditory stimuli also
work. Is it the stimulation of both sides of the brain
in a continuous rythm? That could very well be. Is it
the placebo effect? That could also be part of the
"answer".
So in reality, we don't yet know. So many say,
"This is not science, because we don't know". But what
is science, if not the pursuit of an answer?
Talking to a physician recently, he was
telling me that there are numerous instances where
certain drugs are used for certain conditions, even
though the processes by which those drugs work are
still unknown. Does it make medicine less of a
science?
Reading on the criticisms about EMDR, I found
it funny that many of them pointed towards the
founder, Francine Shapiro. The criticims were saying
her Ph.D. was not from a recognized institution, that
she used to believe that ONLY eye movements were
working, that there was no evidence that only the eye
movement could work. Because she was wrong about her
idea of only the eyes being effective, then she must
be wrong the whole way. Well, what about being humble,
and willing to modify one's theory? It seems to me
that this is at the core of the scientific mehtod...
My unerstanding of science makes me wonder
about those criticisms. In what way do they discredit
the theroy of EMDR? How does discrediting down the
founder make the argument a good one? Not very
scientific in itself... How does saying that "we don't
have proof that it is the eye movement that makes it
work" discredit the fact that perhaps, EMDR does work,
even if we don't know why?
Anyhow, this being said, I'm still reading about
the whole topic of EMDR. I have not made up my mind
about it's effectiveness yet. I'm simply amused at the
kind of arguments I read saying it's not scientific,
when the arguments themselves are less than scientific
themsleves. Academic perhaps, scientific, far from...
Why not invest the energy in studying it, rather than
trying to discredit it based on academic principles?
My 2 cents fro the day!
Jean-Marc
--- "Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday I read the
posts about some of the "big
> theories" in psychology
> and the suggestion that they aren't useful to
> students and was so stunned I
> decided to go home and think about it for the
> weekend before I decided
> whether I should respond and, if I did, what I
> should say. This was
> particularly timely for me because I had just
> finished teaching
> Psychoanalytic theories to my intro students and
> Kohlberg and Gilligan to
> my adolescence students, and I thought that they
> were pretty successful
> classes. Everyone seemed to be listening and they
> asked lots of
> interesting questions. We outlined the theories of
> Kohlberg and Gilligan,
> then critiqued them in terms with whether they had
> been replicated, whether
> they were sexist or based on Western values, and
> whether they actually
> predicted behaviors. I thought that it was a nice
> discussion of how
> theories come from research, and how research also
> changes theories. We
> talked alot about how kids think vs. how adolescents
> think, distinguished
> developmental level from intelligence and culture,
> and about how to use
> these ideas to communicate with others, develop
> expectations for others,
> etc. I treated psychoanlytic theories as
> literary/philosophical models
> that had some clinical utility, but were not based
> on scientific
> evidence. (in fact, I taught humanistic theories
> the same way this
> morning.) I really tried to present them as
> something that used to be seen
> as science, while pointing out that it's premises
> aren't testable and can
> be circular. I suggested that perhaps criticizing
> these theories for not
> being scientific isn't fair because it's analogous
> to (as Myers points out
> in his text) criticizing baseball for not being an
> aerobic sport. Instead
> I tried to emphasize other things that are
> illuminated by psychoanalytic
> theory - why fairy tales and myths still speak to us
> even though these
> stories are set in cultures that seem totally
> different from our own, how
> the analysts gave us the notion that some of the
> random things that we do
> aren't really random, and the idea that symbols can
> be used to express
> things in a kind of psychic shorthand that we
> understand on a cultural
> level. None of these notions can be proven
> "scientifically," but it's
> also hard for me to dismiss the usefulness of all of
> it. Aside from the
> fact that there is some anecdotal science that is
> suggestive - the sexual
> arousal during REM sleep posts recently, for one
> thing. Also, I think that
> psychodynamic theories are getting some new life
> from attachment research
> and that the resurgence of interest in evolutionary
> influences on human
> behavior may make these approaches seem more useful
> for understanding human
> nature. But this isn't exactly scientific evidence
> either. It seems to me
> that the real question goes beyond whether we should
> get rid of some of
> these historical theories because of a lack of
> scientific evidence, but
> whether we should allow philosophy into discussions
> of psychology. Or
> maybe the question is whether psychology is both art
> and science, or just
> science? Personally, I'm a researcher rather than a
> scholar, and I try to
> keep the two areas separate. I don't mind the art
> of psychology as part of
> psychology, but I get irritated when I see the art
> of psychology confused
> with the science of psychology, and I get REALLY mad
> when I see
> theoretically muddled stuff like EMDR and emotional
> intelligence, etc. that
> is neither art nor science get touted as the science
> psychology. I'd be
> interested in knowing what everyone else thinks, but
> from where I stood it
> looked like the students found these theories
> interesting and were busy
> trying to reach conclusions about whether/how to use
> them
> appropriately. --Cindy M.
>
> P.S. I feel almost certain that Dr. Esterson will
> fire off a post
> showing that Freud believed his theory to be
> scientific, and that other
> Neo-Freudians and analysts did the same. He will be
> absolutely right in
> this assertion and I'm certain that all of the
> references he provides will
> be absolutely relevant. I'm not trying to defend
> Freud (this time!) and
> I'm not trying to say that psychoanalytic theories
> are Correct. I'm only
> saying that I agree that psychoanlytic theories
> aren't scientific, but
> disagree that this makes them trash by definition.
> I'm also saying that I
> don't agree that they are irrelevant to students. I
> also think that
> theories of moral reasoning are very relevant to
> students. Just because we
> don't have any really good ones right now doesn't
> mean that we should
> neglect that whole area. I think we need a
> scientific theory of moral
> reasoning that works and hope that teaching the ones
> that don't will
> inspire students to look at this more carefully.
>
> Cynthia Bainbridge Mullis, Ph.D.
> Asstistant Professor of Psychology
> University of Wisconsin - Whitewater
> 800 West Main Street
> Whitewater, WI 53190
>
> (262) 472-3037 Office
> (262) 472-1863
>
>
> Office Hours - Fall 2002
> Mon 10:00-12:00
> Tues/Thurs 12:30-2:00
> Or by appointment
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
=====
Jean-Marc Perreault
Arts & Sciences
Yukon College
Whitehorse, Yukon
867-668-8867
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
