Nari
Diane
Interesting sentiments. What's the message here? That you've done your share of self critiquing? Is there no need for to continue in that vein?
That is not relevant. The question, which I thought I had made clear, is whether you think you can come up with anything better? Based on the daily, relentless mutual reinforcing of your shared perspective, I don't think you guys ever see a reason to dig deep and challenge your preferred ideas. There doesn't appear to be any motivation or incentive for critical analysis of your preferred ideas. In my most recent response to john, I pointed out that it's not self correction if resolution is dependent on the provision of a non threatening context and/or education by another person. No response yet. More importantly, I haven't seen you guys ask the question.
I think it's important to separate two issues here. First is "other/traditional "manual therapy methods and the understanding/beliefs that underpin them. The second is the shared perspective of yourself Diane, john, Barrett and nari. I don't think it's reasonable to equate my calls for deconstructing of the latter with some sort of veiled attempt to build an argument in support of the former. I think you guys do a great job of deconstructing "other/traditional" manual therapy practices.
However, as long as our understanding of the pain producing neural architecture and organization is limited enough that we can best describe pain as an emergent property of a complex system, well, your ideas will remain supposition. That doesn't mean you're limited in understanding, but the suppositions built into your ideas are untestable, thus they remain suppositions.
Personally I don't think we have to "know" in order to apply such ideas. Supposition is probably the best we can do. But geez, you guys have been at it on this site for years, defending these suppositions as if they're self evident truths. Well, they're not. All I'm suggesting is that the degree of certainty you guys express re your ideas just isn't justified given the strength of supporting evidence.
Overt certainty is, I think, at the heart of many indefensible practices in PT. I find it disconcerting that you guys do not appear to be aware of how certain you are in thecorrectness, rightness defensibility of your ideas.
If you can understand/ think that for many of us it has been a long slow wade through a lot of hypotheticals and downright tooth fairy stuff to get at where we are now, then maybe you might interpret our position differently.
Do you still think that among us we haven't already done about a hundred years of professional self-examination/self-questioning cumulatively?
Do you think you can come up with anything better?
Have at it then.
Have at it then.
Deconstructing all the nonsense in the profession is at least a start... Wouldn't you agree?
Do we need to drive any of what passes for current "knowledge" forward? Wasn't most of it based on supposition to begin with? Hasn't neuro/pain science already eroded most of what we "think" already?
Aren't Moseley and many others already doing a good job of building a new science base under the profession?
Do we need to drive any of what passes for current "knowledge" forward? Wasn't most of it based on supposition to begin with? Hasn't neuro/pain science already eroded most of what we "think" already?
Aren't Moseley and many others already doing a good job of building a new science base under the profession?
However, as long as our understanding of the pain producing neural architecture and organization is limited enough that we can best describe pain as an emergent property of a complex system, well, your ideas will remain supposition. That doesn't mean you're limited in understanding, but the suppositions built into your ideas are untestable, thus they remain suppositions.
Personally I don't think we have to "know" in order to apply such ideas. Supposition is probably the best we can do. But geez, you guys have been at it on this site for years, defending these suppositions as if they're self evident truths. Well, they're not. All I'm suggesting is that the degree of certainty you guys express re your ideas just isn't justified given the strength of supporting evidence.
Overt certainty is, I think, at the heart of many indefensible practices in PT. I find it disconcerting that you guys do not appear to be aware of how certain you are in the
Comment