RE: Self-policing opportunity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum



Message

TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 7:48:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crevidence
The fact she teaches at a Baptist U. does not make my initial post irrelevant.


Um...I never said your post was irrelevant.  Misguided maybe, but not irrelevant. 

Sebastian.  Do you really have a problem with someone quoting a biblical verse at a university associated with the Baptist faith?  I might possibly be able to understand your concern if this were at a state university, but you do realize Baptists read and believe in the Bible right?

It's just hard for me to see people having fundamental problems with an idea on the basis of the author's religious affiliation.



PTupdate.com -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 9:36:24 AM)

Tough topic to bring up, and I knew someone would do it some day.

For me, it's not too much of an issue.  I do things in the clinic, on patients, that may not have support in the literature....but, they appear to work for me.  Either there just were not studies done on the treatment, were done but flawed, were done and studied in a manner different than mine.  Either way, I still do as I beleive it works...for me.  In the same light, I believe that Jerry Garcia was God, I just can't find it anywhere in the bible to support that claim......no evidence, but we KNOW it's gotta be true[:)]



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 7:14:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PTupdate.com

Tough topic to bring up, and I knew someone would do it some day.

For me, it's not too much of an issue.  I do things in the clinic, on patients, that may not have support in the literature....but, they appear to work for me.  Either there just were not studies done on the treatment, were done but flawed, were done and studied in a manner different than mine.  Either way, I still do as I beleive it works...for me.  In the same light, I believe that Jerry Garcia was God, I just can't find it anywhere in the bible to support that claim......no evidence, but we KNOW it's gotta be true[:)]


Well put...faith, in one form or another, is a part of everyone's personal and professional life.  We have faith in God, or we have faith there is no God.  We have faith that our clinical theories and treatments are sound, and have less faith in others.  It would seem most appropriate to judge our fellow professionals less on the former and more on the latter.



Sebastian Asselbergs -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 9:21:10 PM)

Rod, I'll just put my remark here again (with added bolds):

"I personally have trouble with that type of quote on an academically oriented page. It shows a potential clash of standards/morals/ethics - albeit a distant possibility. "

I do not deny any institution their right to put whatever they darn well like on their publications - I reserve the right to NOT like it for the reason stated. And crevidence should have the same right. Neither of us is slamming any particular group - just questioning the above use of a quote. How is that slamming christendom?
And obviously we are judged rather readily..... Do you know if we are christians ourselves?



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 9:54:00 PM)

Sebastian. I'm not sure if you are aiming the "judged rather readily" comment toward me or not, but if so I would hope you'd rethink it.  You might have read my earlier post that you are welcome to your beliefs(with added bolds). I am not judging anyone on the merits of their faith or lack thereof because...anyone? It has no place in a scientific discussion.

Unless this person concludes her publications with "...in accordance with the prophecy", I can't see how her faith would be "worrisome" or a source of concern.  Faith is omnipresent regardless of religous afilliation.  Should we dig up Flynn, Childs, Sahrmann, McKenzie's religous background and see how worried we become? OR should you just leave well enough alone and judge someone based on the merits of their works?  I'm unashamedly Roman Catholic and I know my answers to these questions. 

Romanes Eunt Domus



Jon Newman -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 14, 2008 11:29:58 PM)

There are too many definitions of "respect/disrespect", "faith", and "belief" for me to make much of a comment here yet.  But since there are some self identifying Christians here that are also advocates of science, you may consider taking some time to help out with this study.

quote:


Research Volunteers Needed! We are preparing to run another fMRI study of belief and disbelief, and we need volunteers to help us refine our experimental stimuli. This promises to be the first study of religious faith at the level of the brain. By responding to the four surveys I have posted online, you can make an enormous contribution to this work.
Please answer as many of the surveys as you can. If you only have time to answer one, please choose at random (otherwise, we will have many more responses to the first than to the others).
Feel free to post this message to your blog or to forward the relevant links to your friends. We especially need Christians to respond, as one of the goals of these surveys is to design stimuli that a majority of Christians will find doctrinally sound.
Please note: Each survey starts with the same first page of questions.


Here are the links to the surveys.

Belief Survey A

Belief Survey B

Belief Survey C

Belief Survey D

As noted, this will be the second fMRI study of belief and disbelief.  Here is a link to the full text of the first.

Functional neuroimaging of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty

Thanks.



Sebastian Asselbergs -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:00:05 AM)

Rod, I am a proud ex-roman catholic (altar boy, acolyte).

Now that I have that out of the way, I should say that when faith is put up front in academic discourse or publication, it appears that it plays a heck of a larger role than in Childs', Flynn's, McKenzie's or whomever's publications. Obviously you see that difference too, since you suggest the need to DIG for them.....



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:02:26 AM)

Jon, that first paper wasn't a study comparing the difference between the neural process of brains between Christians and non-Christians.  The paper seemed to be focused on what occurred with the brain after reading something one believed to be true, false or not sure.

Everyone can have their own beliefs, but to state that since Christians believe in very difficult things to prove means Christians, in particular physical therapist Christians, will believe anything, in particular the specific examples of accupuncture meridians and FRS lumbar segments.  I honestly don't care if hard questions are asked around a religious topic... I do care when a ridiculous assumption is made.  I gave specific examples of when Christian beliefs will have an effect on science.  Physical therapists do not practice within such an environment where a Christian's religious faith would lead to a particular stance on a science topic within the physical therapy world.



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:12:13 AM)

Bas... quite a few of the faculty did have Biblical quotes at that university.  I actually would expect something like that since that the professors are affiliated with a Christian university.  The quotes are found at the bottom of the webpage for each faculty member that chose to include one - just like you do your
quote:

Mundi vult decipi
  The Biblical quotes might be helpful for the students because it potentially creates a connection with the student - a commonality of beliefs.



JSPT -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:26:56 AM)

Holy Crap!  Haven't checked this thread in a few days; when did this turn into The Inquisition? [;)]

It stinks to high heaven (Ha!) that a professor from a university with supposed Christian values is deceiving the public with a product she is endorsing.  That is NOT keeping with the fundamentals of Christian belief.  Until I hear a reasonable defense, the PT in question is putting a few dollars in her bank account by using her position as a PT and professor to hawk a piece of plastic that is misleading at best, and intentionally deceiving at worst.

"In the matter of science vs. religion, I am issuing a restraining order.  Science is to stay 100 yards from religion at all times."  -Judge Snyder, The Simpson's



Jon Newman -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:45:31 AM)

quote:

Jon, that first paper wasn't a study comparing the difference between the neural process of brains between Christians and non-Christians.  The paper seemed to be focused on what occurred with the brain after reading something one believed to be true, false or not sure.--SJ


I realize that.  In the call for volunteers the authors make it clear that their upcoming project "promises to be the first study of religious faith at the level of the brain."  I posted the first paper to allow people to see what the author's previously published peer reviewed work was, not to demonstrate some sort of difference between Christians and non-Christians.  I also posted it to give the "call for volunteers" some credibility by viewing who the authors are and because the readers here have no idea what I'm linking to.  They may think it is some sort of scam.

The upcoming project is likely focusing on Christians versus other religions so that the results are generalizable and relevant to the culture in which the author lives.  Also, since Christianity is by far the most popular religion here (the US), test subjects will have a greater probablility of being Christian and the test stimuli needs to be relevant to the population likely to be studied. 

On the topic of whether religious faith presents any potential barrier to scientific progress in PT, I disagree with you.  I think one of the big aversions to theory in PT practice is because of where that might lead people.  It would likely require a level of self reflection for many therapists that they simply are uncomfortable with depending on the degree of fundamental adherence to doctrine they practice.  Usually discussions of theory are circumvented by injecting arguments about outcomes superceding the value of theory.  I think that argument has some merit but it cheats by never addressing the important role theory does play in the normal development of scientific understanding. 

The main theory that has been driving PT in the past has been biomechanics oriented which would not result in much dissonance and may be why it remains as the bedrock of PT.  However, it is my opinion that consciousness, behavior, and neuroscience in general are the more fruitful avenues of research driving the future of PT.  I don't know, but I think that that area of research is simply too uncomfortable for many people and fear avoidance insues. 



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 7:55:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sebastian Asselbergs

Rod, I am a proud ex-roman catholic (altar boy, acolyte).

Now that I have that out of the way, I should say that when faith is put up front in academic discourse or publication, it appears that it plays a heck of a larger role than in Childs', Flynn's, McKenzie's or whomever's publications. Obviously you see that difference too, since you suggest the need to DIG for them.....


This post makes absolutely no sense to me Bas...or I'm simply not tuned into your dry wit in typed form.



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 8:02:52 AM)

quote:


The main theory that has been driving PT in the past has been biomechanics oriented which would not result in much dissonance and may be why it remains as the bedrock of PT. 

Jon you can't be serious. Not much dissonance?  Are you actually reading our journals?  There has never been more dissonance mainly because the fields of neuroscience have permiated the orthopedic bedrock.
quote:


However, it is my opinion that consciousness, behavior, and neuroscience in general are the more fruitful avenues of research driving the future of PT.  I don't know, but I think that that area of research is simply too uncomfortable for many people and fear avoidance insues. 


You may be right, but right now these fruitful avenues are more like dirt roads right now rooted in basic science.  Eventually they will likely lead to a handy supplement to a great body of knowledge in orthopedics.  Who knows, one day maybe orthopedics will eventually be the handy supplement to neurosciences.  The sad thing is we are likely to move closer to paving this road by focusing on the publishers faith.



Jon Newman -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 8:33:52 AM)

quote:

There has never been more dissonance mainly because the fields of neuroscience have permiated the orthopedic bedrock.


Rod, you rightly point out that there has never been more dissonance and it is mainly because of neuroscience.  That was the point I was making except that I'd extend it a bit further.  The current dissonance may be due to the simple realization that biomechanics is insufficient (at best) and the "how did I get so far behind" feeling.  I think there is more dissonance to come for some people depending on the degree of fundamental adherence to religious doctrine they subscribe to.  Basically I'm disagreeing with SJ that religious faith is irrelvant to the progress of PT related knowledge.  I think, for some (many?), it is a barrier.



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 9:39:00 AM)

I currently teach in the exercise science department at a local university.  We have recently modified the syllabus to incorporate 4-5 weeks of motor control (Central mechanisms of movement, Peripheral mechisms of movement, local neuromuscular control, and Integrated motor control systems) as precursers to the anatomic/biomechanics portion of our Fundamentals of Kinesiology class. 

I think we do devote an enourmous amount of time on the biomechanical aspect of our practice. Neuroscience and biomechanics are integrated systems that must be given appropriate attention in the beginning of an academic career for the developing professional to appreciate.  (sound familiar?) HOWEVER, I would also submit that this does not make biomechanics any less relevant.  In fact the integrated approach to learning will probably reveal even more pearls from the incomplete orthopedic body of knowledge.

I will say again, I would never judge anyone on the basis of their spiritual or lack-of spiritual belief system as I think that is ultimately the most personal decision.  I do find it "worrisome" if you are correct that it is a barrier for some or many as you state.  This to me is ironic, as the lable of "predjudicual" is often reserved for those of faith, not those who question it in the name of science. 



Sebastian Asselbergs -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 9:59:38 AM)

SJ, mine is not a faith based quote connected to a much larger religion. It is just a small quote about the gullibility of people. No other context - morals - beliefs.

Rod: Dry wit? Or twit? [;)]
" Should we dig up Flynn, Childs, Sahrmann, McKenzie's religous background and see how worried we become?"
I see a big difference between putting religious quotes in academic publications and having to go "digging" for someone's religious background.



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 10:10:09 AM)

Alles klar Bas.

Crev.  This would be a great discussion over a beer, but I think we've all sufficiently blown our loads all over this thread regarding our faiths.  I have no desire to understand your faith system any more than you want to here about Catholic apologetics.  Let's move on. 



SJBird55 -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 10:29:00 AM)

Crevidence, yes, you are right.  I did take the liberty to alter what you wrote and did put it into a succinct statement of what you appeared to be conveying.  I made the language stronger, yes.  You used a softer language.  I took it to the full black and white level. 

I do believe that you believe that religious faith does play in how physical therapists analyze or choose interventions.  If you didn't believe it, why would you have even brought it up? 

I don't believe that religious orientation is a major factor with how therapists make clinical decisions or analyze evidence.  As I've said before, I believe apathy is a much bigger factor.



Sebastian Asselbergs -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 11:28:40 AM)

SJ, SJ, SJ.  [;)]  Let me take the same liberty: in a more  black and white version of your post, you say that crevidence is a liar.
"If you didn't believe it, why would you have even brought it up? "

This was an illustration of how interpretation and extrapolation of meaning can go off the rails. 

And now, I will shut up about this....[:D]



TexasOrtho -> RE: Self-policing opportunity (May 15, 2008 1:46:29 PM)

Damn...I can't stand it. I'm back in this.  Took a look through Ovid over lunch on the topic of spirituality and medicine.  You may or may not be amazed at the literature out there on this topic.  It was eye opening and had me thinking...first time all day.

If the author's spirituality would be a cause for concern, what about the spirituality of the subjects in the study?  Would their backgrounds (pain behavior, health care utilization, culture, values) also potentially influence the results of the study?  Should these be factored into our evaluations of the literature?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.078