Re: Two reasons that these claims are spurious

On my way out the door (see other message regarding the nature of this site and wasting my time) but will reply one last time.

It is obvious that many here WANT to believe in EMDR. Arguments about anecdotes, observer bias, marketing tactics, scare tactics used against members of ISTSS and DIV12, threats and even (gasp!) actual research conducted by people not making their living doing EMDR or its training do nothing to even crack the lid of many minds here.

The logic of my previous post is this:

You resorted to using an authority as a reason to see EMDR as effective. Resort to authority is a logical fallacy intended to over-awe the reader into saying "Well if they say its great then it must be so".

Problem is, as I pointed out, members of both groups have reported LOTS of outside pressure, threats, and political infighting over their reports AND by their own criteria almost anything that has ever been studied and reported in the peer-reviewed press qualified as "empirically-validated" or "effective".

This means that both reports fail to discriminate the very things they were supposed to - that is what works from what doesn't according to the research (since everything apparently qualifies as working).

Bye,
JM

Replies:

Still confused, by Robert P. O'Brien, Ph.D., 2/24/00 Re: Still confused, by , 5/10/00

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.