Re: Double talk and double standards

Ricky, please. As you note such merry-go-round discussions are tiresome so I won't repeat what has been already covered by others here. However, I believe that the process you are engaging in is often more illustrative than the actual content of your arguments.

1. You conveniently ignore all the disconfirming literature in your supposedly comprehensive review.

Dr. Paulsen-Inobe has helped bring to our attention the role of rhetoric in the discussion of EMDR research.

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Your lit review ignores independent studies conducted by researchers who aren't EMDR proponents, and who do not have a vested interest and financial stake (e.g., book deals, workshops, etc.) in the outcome. Remember, it is independent replication that is the hallmark of science. That there is a difference in outcome between proponenents and independents should raise some questions about the results.

Ricky's statement:

"It's abundantly clear from numerous studies that EMDR is *at least* about as effective as the other effective trauma treatments."

J Anxiety Disord 1999 Jan-Apr;13(1-2):131-57

The relative efficacy and treatment distress of EMDR and a
cognitive-behavior trauma treatment protocol in the amelioration of
posttraumatic stress disorder.

Devilly GJ, Spence SH.

Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia. dev@psy.uq.edu.au

The growing body of research into treatment efficacy with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
has, by-and-large, been limited to evaluating treatment components or comparing a specific
treatment against wait-list controls. This has led to two forms of treatment, Eye Movement
Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT), vying for
supremacy without a controlled study actually comparing them. The present research compared
EMDR and a CBT variant (Trauma Treatment Protocol; TTP) in the treatment of PTSD, via a
controlled clinical study using therapists trained in both procedures. It was found that TTP was both
statistically and clinically more effective in reducing pathology related to PTSD and that this
superiority was maintained and, in fact, became more evident by 3-month follow-up. These results
are discussed in terms of past research. Directions for future research are suggested.

2. Your conclusions about the literature imply that EMDR proponents are free to make claims until proven otherwise. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Refer to web site for full explanation:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Examples:

1.Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

2."You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Now Ricky's argument:

"It is also way premature to write off eye movements as having no impact or contribution to treatment effect. While there
are as yet no definitive studies explicitly supporting a role for eye movements, neither are their any definitive studies
precluding such a role, and the bulk of existing studies do at least suggest a role. "

As I noted, fallacies are somewhat subjective. People can decide for themselves if Ricky's arguments fit or not.

Replies:

Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/23/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by JT Stratten, 10/23/02 Re: Double talk and double standards, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/24/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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