Jean-Marc Perreault wrote [snip] > Interesting timing on this one. A while ago, I ordered a book > in my planning for a Crim/psyc course I had to teach. I did > not end up using it, but recently took to reading it. The > book is B.J. Cling's 2004 Sexualized Violence Against Women > and Children. > > Chapter 8 is on memories of child abuse. On p.196, she states > "To this question [Is there support for delayed recall of > childhood abuse], the unequivocal answer of the research > literature is yes".
Quote from same page 196 of Cling (2004): "Brown, Scheflin, and Hammond (1998) reviewed all available studies... that raised the question of a history of childhood sexual abuse reported periods of full or partial amnesia for the abuse." http://www.charm.net/~dhe/Cling.jpg In their critique of a comparable article by D. Brown, A. W. Scheflin and C. L. Whitfield (1999) in The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, A. Piper, H. G. Pope, and J. J. Borowiecki III (2000) write: "Non-scientists are frequently impressed by the idea that a concept appears to be supported by a large number of observations. But of course the number of observations is meaningless unless one assesses the quality of those observations." So in the last analysis the dispute over repressed memories (or "dissociative amnesia") boils down to a dispute about the methodology used in such studies and the validity of the conclusions drawn from them. But maybe that's stating the obvious. -:) References: D. Brown, A. W. Scheflin and C. L. Whitfield, "Recovered memories: The current weight of evidence in science and in the courts," Journal of Psychiatry and Law 27 (1999): 5-156. A.Piper, H. G. Pope, and J. J. Borowiecki III, "Custer's last stand: Brown, Scheflin, and Whitfield's latest attempt to salvage 'dissociative amnesia'," The Journal of Psychiatry and Law 28 (2000): 150-213. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.esterson.org/ http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.srmhp.org/0202/review-01.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=182 ----------------------------------- Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:18:17 -0500 (EST) Author: David Epstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Repressed memory challenge > On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Marc Carter went: > > > Holy crap. How are we supposed to fight that sort of ignorance? In > > person I'd just ask for some of that "literature," but if it's > > uneducated readers, they're just going to believe it, forget the source, > > and be very certain that it's true. > > I found the book at Amazon and used their "search inside this book" > feature to poke around in it. Here's the relevant passage: > > <http://www.charm.net/~dhe/Cling.jpg> > > You can see more via Amazon. > > As I've mentioned over the last ten years, my skepticism is aroused at > least as much by "false memory" claims as by "recovered memory" > claims. So I think that the book has legitimate arguments to make. > But the phraseology is inappropriately, irresponsibly self-assured. > > --David Epstein > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
