Sunday, November 28, 2010

Hit a hornet nest

I seem to have hit on a hornet nest, as they swarm out for a few attacks in defence of Bodehamer:
To denigrate the work of someone who has such success because you don't agree with it, is both unkind and unprofessional, and only contributes to the tension in the stuttering community at large.
(a) I denigrate his statements on the causes of stuttering, because he does not change them in the face of obvious and clear evidence to the contrary.
(b) I do not denigrate his desire to help and do not say that he has not helped some people.
(c) not "I" don't agree, but a lot of scientific articles and researchers don't agree with him.
(d) What is professional? To stay silent on the scientific non-sense he is propagating?
(e) What you can call "tension" is what I call an open intellectual debate with the demand for consistency with established science.

His views are religious. He and his followers want to believe, and arrange their world view around. Why does Bodenhamer not change his views despite clear empirical and theoretical arguments? Because he has the mind set of a believer of an unenlightened type. Maybe we should also ask Bob Bodenhamer whether he believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago? Does he deny evolution? Does he believe in a personal God that actively intervenes in our life and is not just a creator?

Given his state of mind on stuttering, I would not be surprised if he ignores empirical evidence here, too.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Because of the nature of religious views, the last paragraph isn't going to mean the same thing to everyone. I also don't see what it has to do with his views on stuttering.

I would argue that because Bodenhamer includes his made up theories about stuttering in his self-help work, when an individual knows (or finds out later) the evidence against his views, the work as a whole will lose validity and be less likely to change the psychosocial adaptation.

Tom M said...

Maybe we should ask Bob Bodenhamer whether he believes the earth was created a few thousand years ago? Does he deny evolution? Does he believe in a personal God that mysteriously acts on our life and is not just a creator?

This is an ad hominem attack, which has no place in open intellectual debate.

Tom Weidig said...

His views on stuttering are religious, too.

He is part of the NLP sect, and refuses to see clear scientific evidence to the contrary, because HE WANTS REALITY TO BE HOW HE WANTS IT TO BE.

Again, I would be interested to hear his views. Just to remind everyone that the pope agrees that the earth was created billions of years again and that evolution is a fact.

@Tom M: I'll be happy to engage in arguments if someone actually counters my arguments.

sachin said...

I think, personalities and personal benefits ("I benefited by this or that") should be kept out of the debate, which is about: what does cause and sustain stammering? Even though this "science of stammering" is not a "perfected science" yet- still, the evidence (based on brain scans etc.) which is already there, should be acknowledged- And accommodated in our theories of how NLP or other methods work and help people. This can happen only if people focus on issue at hand rather than defending their ideological positions, which sometime (may be unconsciously) become somewhat "church" like positions...

Gustaf said...

I have not yet read all your posts on Bodenhamer, but I read the first one. And I was nearly commenting on it too, just to express how well-written and to the point it was. You refuted his pet theories about stuttering, not his success in treating it, and you even offered a better way for him to present his material. He (and his fans) just ought to be grateful.

Pete said...

Tom, how full of contradictory rubbish are you? What has his church and religious views got to do with it? What has the Pope got to do with stuttering and NLP? You boast about your scientific approach to things, and here you are doing the exact opposite.
You are using cheap and dirty personal attacks to discredit a man who have thousand times more success in the stuttering world than you have. Name me one person - just just one stutterer - who has been cured by your scientific approach?
You boast about how you challenge the views, and not the person, but here you are directly attacking the person. You're a hypocrite and a time-waster Tom, who has little to contribute to the stuttering community. Do us all a favour, and go back to your scientific world, and loose yourself in textbooks in a lab somewhere, where no one can find you.

Anonymous said...

Pete -

I second your motion and emotion!

Anonymous said...

Interestingly enough, most of the "experts" in ASHA and the SFA also share this blogs authors' view of Bodenhamer. At conferences, when Bodenhamer, his books or views are discussed, it is always with spite filled and hate full comments similar to this blogs author.

My guess it's because the ASHA and SFA endorsed research is so evidenced based and their recommended therapies are so successful.

pago.clone@gmail.com said...

Well, Pete, to discount all the work Tom has done for the stuttering community just because of this one remark is pretty stupid, sorry to say.

Of course, it's plainly obvious that it's hypocritical to advocate for rigorous science and then to include a clearly irrelevant ad hominum attack, as Tom did. I was actually surprised to read it.

But it's not that big of a deal, because Tom has provided ample scientific arguments in his criticism of Bodenhamer. All of Tom's arguments on this particular point are convincing and well-defended. So, the bottom line is he's right. Should he have decorated his argument by equating religion to utter nonsense and associating Bodenhamer with that "nonsense"? Of course not. It was irrelevant and honestly a little tasteless (and i'm not even religious). That should be obvious, as I bet Tom knows. But it would be a thousand times more ridiculous to undermine all of Tom's GREAT AND INFLUENTIAL work for the stuttering community just because of this.

Anonymous said...

Pago -
Tom is a hater of anyone or anything that brings success to those who stutter. He cannot find his answer, and so he hates that others have. This truth is evidenced based by all his blog entries. He wants desperately to be a leader, yet he cannot, and will not, ever be in any field he pursues.

He is just a person who stutters wanting in the worst way to be be something else, and he hates it.

This is a truth...at least to some of us.

pago.clone@gmail.com said...

Anonymous, that is a bunch of nonsense. If you're going to spew that garbage, please provide some evidence that "Tom is a hater of anyone or anything that brings success to those who stutter." If calling out pseudo-scientists on making false conclusions that give people false hope about stuttering is "hatred", then Tom's a hater of deceptions.

Would you think it better if no one challenged people like Bodenhamer on false teachings, EVEN if they help some people? In some sense, bringing people to the stark truths can kill a placebo effect or even reduce it, thereby increasing stuttering. But for the majority and in the long run, it's the only way to go. People need to know the truth, and Tom tries to contribute to that service. If you believe you can do a better job, then create your own blog. Otherwise, don't inflate one error in judgment to undermine all Tom's work.

Anonymous said...

It's more like you hit a moron's nest... Where are these people coming from?

Anonymous said...

You've mentioned Bodenhamer and NLP on your blog many times over the years. Have your readers changed since then? Maybe, more of the general population is reading your blog and have more a tendency to think being unscientific, anti-intellectual, and believing everything is a matter of opinion is a badge of honor.

Anonymous said...

Really? A science blog by someone holding a Doctorate and to illustrate a defensive "hornet's nest" you've used the image of a typically docile bee swarm! Sorry but I couldn't read something claiming to be scientific after seeing this basic biological blunder - the difference between honey bees and hornets is taught in elementary school.