Re:General comment and comment on Point #1

You say, "But science is a rough game where we hold up our ideas to logical analysis and empirical data to weed out the bad ideas and develop better ones. The best place for the role of "clinical experience" falls in the context of discovery, and is best left out of the context of justification."

Here I must protest. Though science must be logical, there are others stages in the scientific process where other cognitive functions beside logic must be allowed to contribute. Inspiration occurs at the beginning of research, and again each time things are at an impasse, somebody has to have a stroke of insight that contributes to a hypothesis. Then logic steps in in the form of the null hypothesis. So its not a bolt of lightening and then trudging tediously to a data-oriented conclusion, its more a yin/yang, left/right hemisphere process (Watson & Tharp, about 1985).

Furthermore, this forum isn't limited to discussions of science and data. Clinical is okay here. Insights and hypotheses and possibilities are okay here - and try to clearly identify when we are talking scientific data and when its clinical anecdote or impression. That's legit.

Replies:

Re:General comment and comment on Point #1, by Cahill, 10/29/02 Re:General comment and comment on Point #1, by Ricky Greenwald, 10/29/02

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

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