[ Contents | Search | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Greg Snyder
Date: 08 Oct 2006
Time: 08:49:00 -0500
Remote Name: 207.68.248.51
Hi Vasu… Your question really does necessitate a discussion on what constitutes a true scientific theory. (As opposed to a pseudoscientific theory, many of which have made their way into the field of SLP.) While there are many characteristics of a “true science” theory, there are a few core components: (1) A true theory can be directly tested and falsified; (2) A true theory makes predictions. Those predictions are then directly tested. (As opposed to many a stuttering perspective that simply “explains” aspects of stuttering after the fact.) (3) A “true science” theory is not held in great regard—as it’s sole job is to attempt to account for reality and be tested. It is continually tested; active attempts are made to falsify it. If it is falsified by a study with sound methodology and internal validity, then the defunct theory gets abandoned. In other words—a “true science” theory places more emphasis on the data, rather than the theory itself. … … … … Any theory that falls short in any of these 3 areas is, by default, pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific theories hold no true scientific value. Instead, I would argue that they are a significant detriment to our field and to people who stutter. … … … … I’ve got to run to church at this point, but I’ll come back at a later time and time to address your question in a more specific fashion. (But before the question could be addressed, a “true science” theory had to be operationally defined.)