I think perhaps that being a reasonable and rational person is being confused with the science of psychology. To me, one needn't care about scientific psychology and still be an excellent evidenced based therapist.
For example, Gerald Peterson in his post said "In the Stanovich book he argues that psychologists should offer the public two guarantees: First that claims are based on established scientific findings in psychology, and second, that applications/treatments have been developed and tested/evaluated scientifically." Ok. I think that is a good idea. But, I think I can do that without caring about psychology as a science. In fact, I can do that without any knowledge of the scientific method at all. Without the empirical training will I be at the mercy of the authors of the study? Of course (that is, what is beyond the bounds of an intelligent rational person being able to figure out). But we all are, because we don't have the time to investigate it ourselves and we fully depend on peer-review and the status of the journal/lab where the research comes from. And note, we are not saying that the students don't have any training, just that they don't have any particular interest. Also, Stanovich's book and others like it are books about rational thinking not about the scientific method. Honestly, if we had to wait for the results of experiments to catch up with life, we wouldn't be getting out of bed in the morning. Furthermore, I think any fairly intelligent clinician can pick up some top-rated clinical research journals and figure out what clinical issues are supported or not supported by the research. And that without giving a hoot about scientific psychology. After all, it aint the inner workings of string theory. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
