EMDR Forum Archive, 1999
Then EMDR isn't science
Brian · 5/21/00 at 10:11 pm ET
Critics say that EMDR proponents will try to ignore disconfirmatory evidence. Read some of the above posts and see if this is the case. EMDR proponents make one of the most serious scientific fallacies: they consistently seek to confirm their beliefs instead of trying to disconfirm their theory. At face value, this statement would seem to be a perfectly acceptable and common-sense way to approach things. However, proper scientific method unequivocally requires testing a theory by putting it through a fire test to see if the hypotheses that follow from the theory can be disconfirmed. This is the bedrock of science and when this method is not employed we all pay the price with bad science that is harmful, wasteful, and/or non-productive. We hear time and time again that EMDR is a "power therapy" and metaphors are used that compare it to a bladed power tool that can do good or with one misslip take off a thumb or worse. This argument is used to forward the unprecedented notion in psychotherapy that the therapy's creator must tightly control the dissemination of theory and training and that only those who are ordained from this person are proficient enough to judge it. Then, proponents complain that studies which disconfirm some fundamental hypotheses of the EMDR theory are incorrect, misleading, or biased. Instead, only those studies done by a few of the EMDR elite are adequate demonstrations of EMDR. In addition, proponents complain that studies done with too few people show no difference because they don't have enough power. But here, in an attempt to ignore disconfirming evidence, they contradict themselves. I thought that EMDR was so powerful that it is far more effective than anything else. Therefore, one would need fewer subjects to pick up such a powerful procedure. But we do not find this time and time again. Also, proponents promote EMDR's use, especially in places like this BB, for every psychological disorder listed in the DSM and even with non-clinical populations. However, when studies do experiments with these population, they are criticized by proponents. Also, EMDR is so powerful and effective but, if you go by the logic of proponents like Sandra, you will come to the conclusion that multi-"leveled" training is a must because if not you are not doing EMDR. This is funny because all this training has developed over the years and because replication of Francine's results are non-existent in controlled independent research. What I have outlined is the verbal slight-of-hand that has been practiced by EMDR proponents since the early studies have disconfirmed the hypotheses that follow from the theory. Instead of predicting outcomes, as a sound theory does, EMDR theory regresses onto itself by adapting its language to conform with the disconfirming data. I call on Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory to help explain this behavior. Elaborate rationalization must be employed when we do not want to give up our deeply held believes. Instead of being based on facts, as what science necessitates, EMDR proponents continue to engage in a rhetorical war employing all the time honored methods. Bottom line in all the EMDR research: I call on Francine to specify what research can be done to disconfirm EMDR theory and then invest resources into properly testing EMDR in an independent way. As science tries to pin point ways to disconfirm EMDR theory, as is called for in all good science, EMDR moves into the shadows, becoming a chimera that is discussed but that that cannot be substantiated.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
