 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Disclaimer:
Information and activities in this site are only intended to
be educational. Nothing herein is to be used for diagnosis,
prescription or treatment of any conditions, diseases, or disorders
whatsoever. Nothing from the site should be used in place of
competent health care. Yet, ideas and information may be used
as adjuncts to responsible health care. Nevertheless, owners
and staff are in no way liable for any use or misuse of material
obtained herein.
| |
|
|
|
Reflections by Paul Blythe, on
a difficult but important question about frustration in communication.
Please don't give up on the whole site because
this page is really hard work Actually, this paper can be purchased
as a PDF file in the Publications room.
Dr. Carl Simonton once told the story of a psychiatrist who was
having good results with a rather unorthodox technique. He had written
some case studies with the view to publishing his ideas in his favorite
journal. The editors sent his report back with the remark that he
hadn't proven that the technique was really responsible for the
result. They also urged him to set up proper scientific studies.
The psychiatrist did this and for the next 20 years his reports
continually yielded the same reaction from editors: "You haven't
proven anything." Finally, the psychiatrist decided to hold
a symposium and invited renowned scientists to answer one question:
"What constitutes scientific proof?" One of the first
replies to his invitation declined the invitation saying, saying
that "the question was much too difficult and he doubted he
could make a contribution." The letter was signed, Albert Einstein!
Go to top of right
column
|
|
|
|
This story was surely some consolation to oncologist, Carl Simonton
and his wife Stephanie, who in the 1970s were pioneering "support
groups" for cancer patients and their families. Stephanie,
a psychologist, was having good results with the approach but the
couple was under attack by the medical profession, who at that time
could only see the approach as "holding out false hopes."
Needless to say, the approach has gained widespread appeal as an
adjunct to normal case management. But, the Simonton's predicament
highlights a dilemma faced by people in the vanguard of research.
We seem to have a set of rules for our research but often following
those rules is not good enough.
I see parallels for the Conservation people, who are attempting
to gain wider acceptance of their warnings about the plight of our
planet earth and its ecosystems. The skeptics, it seems are applying
one epistemology, while the Conservationists are applying another.
Epistemology is supposed to tell us how we know a thing or a
truth. Since we are all humans and all seeking truth on our
dealings, it is sometimes puzzling when people apparently can't
hear one another. I think the inability to hear is based in different
ontologies.
Next Page
Return to Free Information Page
|
|
