Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spinal Manipulative Therapy: The Great Conversation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marc,

    I think you seem to be asking "Does anyone else see a double standard of evidence and the acceptance of arguments as well as in behavior and the tone of posts on this forum?" If this is the question, the answer, for the record, is yes I see one also. Virtually every new poster that doesn't agree with the consensus here has complained about it. I suppose it is just coincidence.

    Comment


    • I should add that if you can overlook this and basically ignore it, there can be some interesting ideas presented.

      Comment


      • Randy,

        Many new posters have never before been held to the standards of evidence and discourse that seem to be unique to Soma Simple. By that I mean unique among those sites that discuss clinical issues in physical and manual therapy.

        Again I'll quote Einstein after his initial foray into the community of professional physicists in 1905. Writing to a friend he says:

        "I am very happy to see that our colleagues are lookng carefully at my theories, even if it is in hopes of destroying them."

        This simple acknowledgment of the nature of scientific dialogue, especially when theory is developed (which is pretty much all the time) marks Einstein as something other than the modern day therapist treating patients manually. That population, as you often see here, is full of things they "believe" in, arrive clutching fiercely to questionable evidence and anecdote and are quick to take personal offense whenever their theory is shown to be lacking.

        If you've an example of a moderator behaving in such a fashion, trot it out. That's the kind of example you'd need to demonstrate a "double standard." I think we've only one standard here but many therapists, not having a scientific mindset, have difficulty with it. To me, that's Soma Simple's strength, not its problem.

        This is science, not politics. In science someone is often proven wrong or, at least, relatively wrong in relation to others. This thread has demonstrated that once again. There are no winners or losers if we approach the whole thing as an opportunity to learn, either by strengthening our position with thoughtfulness and further investigation or abandoning it in favor of something better.
        Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 12-11-2006, 12:49 PM.
        Barrett L. Dorko

        Comment


        • Hi Jon,

          ps. The irony is that while you worry about being dehumanized you chose an adjective for your screen name.
          I was specifically referring to Mr. Dorko who has yet to call me by my real name at any point in the thread. He is the only one not to do so. That's the only instance where I've felt objectified and I personally believe those words were chosen to discredit me. These are only assumptions and I may be corrected. In the meantime, I've just attended a Dr. Phil and Tony Robbins workshop so now I'm all better and ready to go

          Randy

          I can't say I totally disagree with you...

          Barrett

          In science someone is often proven wrong or, at least, relatively wrong in relation to others. This thread has demonstrated that once again.


          There are no winners or losers if we approach the whole thing as an opportunity to learn, either by strengthening our position with thoughtfulness and further investigation or abandoning it in favor of something better.


          Marc

          PS: Will you please send me a copy of Simple Contact? Will anybody teach me/point to me to some lit or threads where I can learn some kind of clinical application of SC or DNM?

          Comment


          • Well, if someone were to call me a physical therapist I wouldn't feel "objectified" nor "dehumanized" nor "discredited."

            Claiming that you've been victimized here is transparent, untrue and unwelcomed. Your theory has certainly been shredded, though you may continue to state otherwise, hoping, I suppose, that someone might actually agree with you. (See my last post for more on that)

            There's no such a thing as "a copy of Simple Contact" and Diane (unlike me) has explained precisely just what she does several times on this site, and recently too. You seem to choose not to read what she's posted. This continual asking for information already provided reminds me of a certain therapist in Michigan that plagued another site many of us used to contribute to regularly.

            Most of us left or rarely visit any longer. It pretty much fell apart, but that will not happen here.
            Barrett L. Dorko

            Comment


            • Thread closed

              This thread was closed as it was hopelessly dysfunctional and likely serves as a case study in anti-process. The "useful" content of the thread could be captured by a handful of posts. "Useful" is in quotation marks as I don't think anything particularly new or substantive had been offered by either side of the argument. No other posts were deleted. Sorry for the distraction.
              "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

              Comment

              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
              Auto-Saved
              x
              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
              x
              x

              Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image below.

              Registration Image Refresh Image
              Working...
              X