Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our way forward

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Our way forward

    This deserves its own thread.

    This week’s interview on Point of Inquiry is linked to The Debunking Handbook.

    Take a look. This. Is. Huge.
    Barrett L. Dorko

  • #2
    Great stuff.
    We have seen how debunking clinically-oriented myths causes backfire any number of times on this site. Sceptics have their work cut out for sure.

    Nari

    Comment


    • #3
      I would love to see SS create a debunking orthopeadically driven care document with the guidelines outlined in this handbook

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by proud View Post
        I would love to see SS create a debunking orthopeadically driven care document with the guidelines outlined in this handbook
        Want to start on that proud? :teeth::thumbs_up
        Diane
        www.dermoneuromodulation.com
        SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
        HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
        Neurotonics PT Teamblog
        Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
        Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
        @PainPhysiosCan
        WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
        @WCPTPTPN
        Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

        @dfjpt
        SomaSimple on Facebook
        @somasimple

        "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

        “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

        “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

        "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

        "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

        Comment


        • #5
          Given the information in the podcast and booklet maybe SS should take down the MFR Great Conversation thread (or move it off the front page) despite it being, by far, the most popular thread ever at SS coming in at 59,368 views at the time of this writing. It could be replaced by a new post consistent with the principles set forth in the booklet.
          "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

          Comment


          • #6
            I am all for that Jon.
            Barrett L. Dorko

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm afraid whatever value this publication may have is somewhat diminished by being lauded by a site whose spin on spin approach to "climate change science" is risible.
              :lightbulb vox clamantis in deserto

              Geoff Fisher
              Physiotherapist

              Comment


              • #8
                ginger,

                Please stay away from this. It's too important for me to try and figure out what you're trying to say.
                Barrett L. Dorko

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's a bit like having science literature on anthropology being reviewed by "Christian Digest" or papers on recent archaelogical discoveries of dinosaurs reviewed by "Creationist Science" magazine. A seemingly valuable text on scepticism/debunking, reviewed by a site whose reason to be, is to add nonsense to nonsense about warmist /alarmist spin, while adding further to the belief mentality that surrounds mainstream warmist agendas.
                  Whatever valuable insights the "Debunking Handbook" may have , is somewhat lost in the effect the site may have in attracting only (warmist) believers and not true sceptics.
                  :lightbulb vox clamantis in deserto

                  Geoff Fisher
                  Physiotherapist

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ginger,

                    It isn't clear to me whether you read the booklet and listened to the podcast. My guess, based on your comments, is that you haven't. Either that or you completely lost the point of the booklet (demonstrate how the principles can be applied) while becoming focused on the subject of the example.
                    "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      C'mon, Geoff

                      Doesn't matter whether you are a climate-change denier or someone who believes in ghosts and gorgons.

                      The purpose of the article is about convincing someone to look at and recall facts, not fiction; something everyone needs to do at some stage in life. Whether they then decide to stick with fiction to explain science is in the lap of the proverbial gods.

                      Nari

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ginger,

                        Go away.
                        Barrett L. Dorko

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The thread The Survival of our Idea came to mind as I listened to the podcast.

                          Now over two years old, it tried to detail how we have failed to expand the ectodermal/neuroscience meme into the mainstream of therapeutic approach and method.

                          In post #214 I said this:

                          The delicate sensibilities of our colleagues aside, I find it impossible to pretend that two totally opposed ideas can co-exist without one being identified as simply wrong. I presume a scientist would get this, but therapists typically do not.
                          The comment seems prescient, and maybe, just maybe, we can further examine some of our mistakes here. I suppose that going through each of the three “backfire effects” – explaining them and giving examples – would be best.

                          But I’m open to suggestions.
                          Barrett L. Dorko

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Barrett,

                            I couldn't agree more that this is one of the best opportunities out there to help the cause. The Neuro V. Ortho challenge may fall too easily into the overkill backfire. How about subjective /objective?
                            We have to stay with this!
                            Gil

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It is amazing how relevant this is. Neuroscience to the physical therapist:

                              1) unfamiliar as compared to orthopedics (familiarity backfire)

                              2) new information easily becomes overkill (overkill backfire)

                              3) cultural worldview of PT is clearly ortho/biomechanical (worldview backfire)

                              it is so obvious why we have failed. Where to start?

                              Gil

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X