Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have decades of experience in making policy decisions that are entirely based an evidential science.
My guard goes up when I see testimonies given and a fervent expectation that those testimonials are to be sacrosanct and not questioned.
I have seen it too often where the anecdotal, when tested under the auspices of real science, is just someone's presuppositional prejudice. The closer the person is too that anecdotal testimony, the more fervent they hold their beliefs.
Much like fundamentalist of any religion. Or cult.
Therefore, when given the choice of choosing between the anecdotal and the science, I'll pick the science every time.
Then you may be a poor decision maker.
I have an advanced degree in the biological sciences, and even in my small field of research over a couple of years uncovered some papers which were simply wrong, and many more questions which were not answered by any paper.
Here is the scientific method in action: Somebody designs a new chemical, dumps it into a body of water, and all the fish go belly up within ten minutes. Can we say what happened based on "evidential science" (whatever that is) with certainty? No. Nobody designed a study, no controls were in place, none of that. How do you know that a toxic gas wasn't emitted from the bowels of the Earth at precisely the same moment the factory got rid of their chemical? You don't. It is precisely people who believe that science can or should answer all questions who can and would allow the chemical to continue to be dumped in a situation like that. The chemical could be dumped 2, 3, 4, or 27 more times, but until a scientist puts a label on it, which most likely will never happen, there is no "scientific" conclusion. The problem is not that science couldn't answer the question; maybe it could, theoretically. The problem is that science doesn't answer the question, in real life, because of time constraints, monetary concerns, or maybe the studies are just to difficult to do. In a world where bridges are falling apart and kids aren't eating, people think that there is the money to fund scientific studies about everything. Science provides the best evidence possible, no question, when it provides any evidence at all; the problem is that in the vast majority of cases science provides no meaningful evidence.
As far as recovery in AA goes, without mincing words, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
good, then it is firmly established and you admit it, that your training, personal experience and work experience
in the medical, mental health, psychology, and social work field for treatment and recovery for addictions is: None
Your credibility on this topic is: None
Your expertise and credentials and licensing on this topic: None
Number of AA meetings you have actually attended: None
But he's got an opinion. Which, with a couple of bucks tossed in the kitty, will get him a cup of coffee at an AA meeting.
great question Dew! that says it all about his credibility: None.
and here are some other questions for the OP who claims to be an authority on addiction, disease, treatment, and recovery:
how many years work experience and personal experience do you have with addictions, treatment, and recovery?
what is your medical training, licensing, and expertise?
what is your work experience in these professional fields: medical, mental health, social work, psychology?
Meh. People can have informed opinions about a thing without being a licensed professional. You are just arguing from authority.
If my doctor says I need a quintuple gastro-cardiovascular-neurological bypass operation I might decide based on research to get a 2nd and maybe a 3rd opinion. Especially if he says if it doesn't work it's not his fault, it's mine.
Now despite that, I wouldn't attempt the operation myself although where AA is concerned I could start a chapter of my own right now without anything but a willingness to provide a meeting place and claim to follow the steps, so here we aren't even talking about licensed experts, we are talking about empowered amateurs running the show. From aa.org:
Quote:
Important to establishing an A.A. group is the need for one as expressed by at least two or three alcoholics; the cooperation of other A.A. members; a meeting place; a coffeepot; A.A. literature and meeting lists; and other supplies.
I've attended two AA meetings by the way, in support of a relative, although it happens they were one of the few actually run by professionals (at a clinic). Does this mean I have two credibility points with you? How nice.
It is a disease, and that fact makes you a bit cranky. You were a policy maker, and I was front line. I used to say; policy makers sit in windowless rooms, with little knowledge of what happens on the front line of healthcare, and mental healthcare.
But, you are not a policy maker, and I now make cake, and cookies, and beautiful art.
What is your favorite kind of cake or pie? Cake is food for Gods and Atheists. The worlds problems can be resolved over cake.
If one person is helped by AA, or one teenager no longer feels alone living with addiction it is a good thing. Those tiny, and sometimes anecdotal stories give people hope.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician
Then you may be a poor decision maker.
I have an advanced degree in the biological sciences, and even in my small field of research over a couple of years uncovered some papers which were simply wrong, and many more questions which were not answered by any paper.
Here is the scientific method in action: Somebody designs a new chemical, dumps it into a body of water, and all the fish go belly up within ten minutes. Can we say what happened based on "evidential science" (whatever that is) with certainty? No. Nobody designed a study, no controls were in place, none of that. How do you know that a toxic gas wasn't emitted from the bowels of the Earth at precisely the same moment the factory got rid of their chemical? You don't. It is precisely people who believe that science can or should answer all questions who can and would allow the chemical to continue to be dumped in a situation like that. The chemical could be dumped 2, 3, 4, or 27 more times, but until a scientist puts a label on it, which most likely will never happen, there is no "scientific" conclusion. The problem is not that science couldn't answer the question; maybe it could, theoretically. The problem is that science doesn't answer the question, in real life, because of time constraints, monetary concerns, or maybe the studies are just to difficult to do. In a world where bridges are falling apart and kids aren't eating, people think that there is the money to fund scientific studies about everything. Science provides the best evidence possible, no question, when it provides any evidence at all; the problem is that in the vast majority of cases science provides no meaningful evidence.
As far as recovery in AA goes, without mincing words, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
I think I have a very good idea of what good science is. Your amateur attempt at describing it doesn't do anyone who knows science any credit.
Science never claims to know the complete answer. You should know that. You should also know that decisions should be made on the best available science. Especially if you've been in the biological sciences you certainly should be aware of that.
For the record, the policy decisions that I was involved with for over two decades all involved biological sciences. I know the subject well, and I worked with experts in the field during that time. I have been involved in designing studies, setting standards for funding, and as well as been involved with the on the ground data collection. I have learned to respect those that have a passion for science, and I have also learned what many try and pass off as science to the ignorant is anything but.
I spent thirty years of my life designing, conducting and reporting on such studies, cupper. I don't need to read them to know that you are misusing them. Did you even read any of my posts about research in this area??? You just don't get it. If ONE person was aided by the therapy, it should NOT be abandoned. Humans are so diverse and individuated that removing ANYTHING from the tool box is just plain stupid!!! Your belief that there is one best therapy based on so-called science is not just misplaced, it is flat out dangerous. Humans are simply NOT that predictable or homogenous. It is impossible to know what will or will not work for any specific individual, impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
Baloney! For every one person that quit and stayed quit, dozens more were left feeling worse off and as personal failures without realizing that the failure was the method, not themselves, since the program is still promoted as "the answer".
The question of personal knowledge was brought up. I was in the bar business for over 20 years. I would say that, along with just my age/numbers of people met, that my contact with people that had drinking problems was greater than most.
There is a big difference in a medical alcoholic and a drunk...most are not medical and don't need to be life-long alcoholics, as they are with AA.
I don't think your credentials as a bartender are superior to my 30+ years of research experience, but whatever! How it is promoted can be an issue because it is ONE kind of answer, NOT THE answer.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 01-12-2016 at 02:16 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonkonkomaNative
It is a disease, and that fact makes you a bit cranky. You were a policy maker, and I was front line. I used to say; policy makers sit in windowless rooms, with little knowledge of what happens on the front line of healthcare, and mental healthcare.
But, you are not a policy maker, and I now make cake, and cookies, and beautiful art.
What is your favorite kind of cake or pie? Cake is food for Gods and Atheists. The worlds problems can be resolved over cake.
If one person is helped by AA, or one teenager no longer feels alone living with addiction it is a good thing. Those tiny, and sometimes anecdotal stories give people hope.
Did you read the two articles I posted? They put it much better detail then I can, and to cut and paste on here serves no purpose. If you don't read them and at least try and understand that there are other perspectives out there, other perspective that recognized experts in the field of addictions work with, then you are only promulgating your presuppositional prejudices.
Meh. People can have informed opinions about a thing without being a licensed professional. You are just arguing from authority.
If my doctor says I need a quintuple gastro-cardiovascular-neurological bypass operation I might decide based on research to get a 2nd and maybe a 3rd opinion. Especially if he says if it doesn't work it's not his fault, it's mine.
Now despite that, I wouldn't attempt the operation myself although where AA is concerned I could start a chapter of my own right now without anything but a willingness to provide a meeting place and claim to follow the steps, so here we aren't even talking about licensed experts, we are talking about empowered amateurs running the show. From aa.org:
I've attended two AA meetings by the way, in support of a relative, although it happens they were one of the few actually run by professionals (at a clinic). Does this mean I have two credibility points with you? How nice.
The reason the AA meetings are held in clinics is that AA is the end game. Most of these places hope to get people into twelve-step meetings, except for the places who specifically market themselves as an alternative to twelve-step. Why? Because it works long term, as well as anything works at least. It's the same reason that the courts mandate people to AA. Judges don't want to see drunk drivers again. It's the best step they can take.
AA doesn't do marketing, and members don't identify themselves as such at the level of press, films, and television. It's a different case for the mental health "professionals." I hope they aren't the same "professionals" who overdiagnose our kids with an alphabet soup of maladies in school and subsequently benefit from their insurance payments. If so, God (oops, no offense intended) save us all. Even in my AA-addled state, I think I can discern self-interest there.
AA works precisely BECAUSE it is not run by professionals. In AA, one drunk can say to another, "You're a drunk. You need to get your **** together, now. Here's how I did it." A professional can't take that approach for a variety of reasons, in large part because they are not trusted, especially if they have not had the experience of addiction. A "professional" is not necessarily a step up for an addict. I saw at least two professionals before AA, and they were the ones full of ****. They didn't forget to charge me though. I finally got sick of it and decided to look for the help I needed. Am I am dupe? I don't think so. Ivy League education, lifelong atheist (pre-AA), extremely untrusting, etc. I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
I think I have a very good idea of what good science is. Your amateur attempt at describing it doesn't do anyone who knows science any credit.
Science never claims to know the complete answer. You should know that. You should also know that decisions should be made on the best available science. Especially if you've been in the biological sciences you certainly should be aware of that.
For the record, the policy decisions that I was involved with for over two decades all involved biological sciences. I know the subject well, and I worked with experts in the field during that time. I have been involved in designing studies, setting standards for funding, and as well as been involved with the on the ground data collection. I have learned to respect those that have a passion for science, and I have also learned what many try and pass off as science to the ignorant is anything but.
AA does not approach anything scientific at all.
Even when there is no science available?
And please don't describe me as an amateur. I have an advanced degree, and have published papers.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician
Even when there is no science available?
And please don't describe me as an amateur. I have an advanced degree, and have published papers.
I've given references to studies. Either you missed them or chose not to look at them.
Great, I'm glad that you published papers. I wonder if any of them came up for review for some the studies I was involved with in designing. As this forum is anonymous, we'll never know.
Although your description of an experiment falls far short of anyone who is even taken an undergrad degree in the sciences. You should know that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is your favorite kind of cake or pie? Cake is food for Gods and Atheists. The worlds problems can be resolved over cake. 
