Many alternative therapies come under a lot of fire from the more skeptical sections of modern society and rightly so, but there are always legions of charlatans racing to defend their chosen flavour of con-artistry; no surprise there. There are also those who have been duped so effectively by these charlatans, that they actually believe these therapies work; they too will defend such quack therapies with gusto. But there is another flavour of candidate that can be found defending the practice of bogus "medicine"; people who have been presented with scientific evidence that a therapy doesn't work, but who choose to make excuses for the practitioners of such therapies, rather than identify it as con-artistry. Meet the apologist.
Apologists assert that even if certain therapies have been proven not to work on the basis they claim to, that the comfort and whatever placebo effect they bring about for the patient is enough to vaidate them as beneficial therapies. Despite the fact that proponents of some of these therapies claim, as fact, that their practices operate on far more than placebo and psychological trickery, while failing in double blind clinical trials, apologists still make excuses for such deception.
I recently watched a clip of Penn and Teller's Bullshit in which they set up a bogus high-class restaurant, which serves as a great analogy for the type of chicanery practiced by quack therapists. I've included the link at the bottom of this piece. Basically what they do in this video is exactly what quack therapists who are justified by apologists do. They serve up bullshit to susceptible marks under the guise of something far more lofty. The mark is ultimately satisfied with what they've been served, because they have been convinced that it is haute cuisine. Despite the fact that they are eating crap, they enjoy the placebo effect.
I think very few people who paid high-end restaurant prices for food, which was essentially garbage, would still feel they got value for money if they were told after paying that their food was actually the cheapest shit they could possibly have eaten and not what they were told they were ordering. I doubt very much if apologists would be given a seconds credence if they made the argument that this was anything less than a scam, yet this analogy is a mirror of the kind of tolerance extended to practicioners of therapies which have failed to demonstrate efficacy upon the grounds they claim they work. The difference is, that a restaurant that did what Penn and Teller did, would have nobody defending them, whereas mystical bullshitters and quacks do, and society in general is more willing to tolerate this kind of medical fraud than they are willing to tolerate other consumer fraud.
If you buy a Rolex, you want it to be a genuine Rolex. The fact that you got enjoyment from a fake one, which you believed to be real, is no argument against fraud, and definitely not one you would shrug off if you were informed a few years down the line that you'd been sold a phony. You most likely wouldn't give a shit about how good it made you feel, you would feel scammed, because it was not what you paid for.
Video Link
http://www.videodouble.com/video/penn-and-teller-bullshit-%22the-best%22...
You failed to mention any of these "therapies" in your blog. If you could tell us what they are, and why they are not valid, it would add some strength to your argument.
"You failed to mention any of these "therapies" in your blog."
I did that deliberately. An argument about the efficacy of a host of different therapies is not what this blog entry is about. I'm saving that for another day.
"If you could tell us what they are, and why they are not valid, it would add some strength to your argument."
It would actually provoke a load of arguments regarding each therapy mentioned, as opposed to the idea put forward in the blog.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
What I am curious about, is whether or not your statement is generalized or not. Do you believe all therapy to be con artistry? Are all therapists con artisits? Or do you believe that certain therapies that you have information about are faulty. It is just such a broad topic. I believe that some therapies are not worth the thought that was put in to them, but oddly enough in the world of therapies, the research indicates that all therapies are generally equally effective, that it is the common factors of therapy that are the true markers of therapeutic movement, not the theory itself. This information can be found in the book Current Psychotherapies by Corsini and Wedding.
"Do you believe all therapy to be con artistry?"
No. But many are.
"Are all therapists con artisits?"
No, only those who practice who are aware that their therapy has failed to prove it's efficacy.
"oddly enough in the world of therapies, the research indicates that all therapies are generally equally effective, that it is the common factors of therapy that are the true markers of therapeutic movement, not the theory itself."
That's what this blog entry is about. That is essentially the apologist angle I was talking about. If I tell you as a consumer that my therapy works based on a specific theory, when in fact it does no such thing, that is fraud.
Let's take colonic hydo-therapy for example. Their claim is that faeces builds into a hardened wall within the colon that can not be removed without their therapy. But proctologists, who have actually cut open the bowels of cadavers assert that no such thing occurs. Science has proven the fallacy of such a theory, yet bullshitters have cried 'conspiracy'. The fact is, that most major hospitals have the equipment and the expertise to perform colonics and they do. But they generally just call it a bowel wash and it's use is limited to clearing the bowel for instant examination. The bowel cleans itself out. That is medically proven fact. So the claims or colonic hydration therapists (a laughably grandiose title) are actually fraudulent, to claim that "common factors of therapy that are the true markers of therapeutic movement" is essentially condoning medical fraud.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
My angle is from a psychological therapy standpoint. Common factors are not meant to condone fraud, common factors in psychotherapy are those things that are the same across every therapy, ie. trust in your counselor, empathy, unconditional positive regard. This means that a Rogerian therapist can expect to be as equally effective as a cognitive behavioral therapist or a reality therapist etc. This doesn't condone fraud, it is just what research has shown. Many psychotherapies might seem ridiculous, but if it fits the person persuing it and it works, it still remains successful. This falls in to the law of thirds--a third of the people seeking help will get better, a third will remain the same and a third will get worse. (Also holds true for substance abuse treatment)
I do however agree that there are therapies including medical and psychological that are not worth a damn, and may even be harmful.
"My angle is from a psychological therapy standpoint."
I don't have much of a frame of reference regarding psychotherapy. But the fact that it is by it's own admission psychologically based means that your line about therapeutic value over theory makes a lot more sense.
"This doesn't condone fraud, it is just what research has shown. "
We had our wires crossed. You are right from a psychotherapy standpoint. But you see where I'm coming from in regard to many other therapies which basically employ psychological tricks, but claim that the benefits of their therapy comes from some other physical or magical theory, as opposed to exploitation of suggestion and the placebo effect. Just like in the video where psychological trickery is employed to make people satisfied with food that has not actually satisfied them in itself; the food was shit, but psychological trickery made the consumer believe it was actually magnificent.
"Many psychotherapies might seem ridiculous, but if it fits the person persuing it and it works, it still remains successful."
I agree.
"I do however agree that there are therapies including medical and psychological that are not worth a damn, and may even be harmful."
Then we are in agreement :)
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Cheers!
Just noticed your handle there fella. My favourite show of all time is Canadian: Trailer Park Boys. It's some seriously fuuny shit. I just wish they'd stop lounging around and bring out a new season.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
Have you seen the movie or the Christmas special? You can get the movie on Amazon.
Yeah, I've seen both of those and every episode. I'm jonesing for a the new season, aparently the boys are taking a few years break, but I'm watchin like a shithawk for their return.
_____________________________________________________________
I am the people my mother warned me about.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tuffgong
I don't have anything to comment with the exception that I agree with you.