Bryan Quesnelle does it again! I love the way this guy can put things so eloquently and rationally. This Padawan is still learning. 1) science-minded therapists as abolishers of any technique without evidence This has already been addressed by some, but I think this is a misunderstanding on the part of the author. What is up for debate, in the case of (most) techniques, is mechanism of action, not subjective client experience of the technique. A particular technique can feel great, or be part of a subjective experience of a client (reduction in perceived pain, as an example) even if the underlying model or proposed mechanism is wrong. For instance, it is unlikely that the perceived effect of CST is a result of moving cranial bones. That doesnt mean the client didnt respond to the treatment in a positive way... only that the effect isnt likely due to cranial bone movement. Do CST techniques work *as advertised*? No. Are the effects of CST treatments invalid, then? No, of course not. However, the explanatory model needs to be adjusted... which doesnt mean that the technique needs to be changed at all (necessarily). Thats whats the more science-minded group is advocating for - not getting rid of techniques, but only promoting explanatory models that are coherent with reality.
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:22:31 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015