Exploding the irony meter, the National Association for the Research and Therapy announced the keynote speaker for their upcoming conference. Paul Copan from nearby Palm Beach Atlantic University will speak on the following topic:
“Truth, Freedom, and Social Constructions: Why Truth-Seeking Ought To Guide Scientific Research”
Without an understanding of key philosophical and ethical concepts for doing research-including “truth,” “tolerance,” “social constructionism,” and “freedom”-one’s research is likely to become skewed and prove to be both unscientific, and propagandistic. The researcher ought to have freedom to investigate and publish one’s research in the interests of truth-that is, what corresponds to reality. Such a view is not only commonsensical and self-evident. It simply makes for good science and prevents it from being corrupted by pure social and political agendas.
NARTH’s website is full of propaganda and information that does not correspond to reality. They publish a journal they call peer reviewed but is rather reviewed by members and leaders of the organization. They call for more research on their practices but then do next to none. They refer to mainstream research but often bend it to say something which cannot be said based on the research paradigm (e.g., Narth on reparative therapy and suicide risk).
With Liberty Council chief Mat Staver as one of the featured speakers, it is clear that they are hoping more for legal justification than research justification. NARTH has really been on the ropes in recent years but I am concerned that they are getting a boost from the recent efforts in CA to ban reparative therapy. If the courts find the ban is unconstitutional, then they will probably gain an undeserved public relations benefit.
I am not alone in this concern. Chris Ferguson expresses well some possible problems and APA’s Jack Drescher also worries that the ban will backfire. Drescher told Gay City News:
“Passing legislation to prevent a questionable practice seems a rather heavy-handed and inefficient way to reduce these practices among licensed professionals (like using a hammer when you would be better served by using more delicate surgical instruments). I have suggested to one gay rights group that asked me about this that they consider developing an educational video for licensing boards and professional ethics committees since these are the places where education is needed since they are the ones who hear complaints from patients/clients who feel they have been hurt by these practices.”
Don’t let NARTH fool you with their words about research “truth.” If the leaders of that group were interested in validating their methods, their conferences would be packed with research presentations. However, look at their program for this year. All of the presentations of “clinical workshops,” religious outreach and legal defense. Where are the studies?
I wonder Warren if you saw this It gets better video he must have went to Nicolosi as he says they flew out to California
http://youtu.be/FfJzgPw_HDI
Here is a new one from the Southern Poverty Law Center
http://youtu.be/VnO7c_d0ek8
I’m surprised by the article written by Jack Drescher, a prominent gay psychologist, who was actually OPPOSING the current law which banned SOCE therapy for minors in California. The criticism coming from him, could actually help NARTH and possibly have this law stricken by the state’s supreme court.
Hello, George Orwell! NARTH is straight (!) out of 1984 [“Ministry of Truth” (i.e., lies) “Ministry of Love” (i.e., torture) and all that]
I’m surprised by the article written by Jack Drescher, a prominent gay psychologist, who was actually OPPOSING the current law which banned SOCE therapy for minors in California. The criticism coming from him, could actually help NARTH and possibly have this law stricken by the state’s supreme court.
Hello, George Orwell! NARTH is straight (!) out of 1984 [“Ministry of Truth” (i.e., lies) “Ministry of Love” (i.e., torture) and all that]
Warren says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm
“I think there is so little research on the whole thing that it will be hard to prove much of anything.”
And that is where NARTH et. al. will have problems. The defense won’t have any trouble finding former patients who say the therapy didn’t work, that their parents forced them into therapy, and even that they were harmed by the therapy. The plaintiffs on the other hand I think will have a MUCH harder time finding patients who were “cured” enough to have their claims withstand cross examination (although possibly). And as I said, I would love to see NARTH therapiists take the stand 🙂
As far as the law growing to include adutls.; I don’t think so. I think (hope) this trial will do for SOCE therapy what the Dover decision did fo “creationism/Inteligent design)
Warren says:
October 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm
“I think there is so little research on the whole thing that it will be hard to prove much of anything.”
And that is where NARTH et. al. will have problems. The defense won’t have any trouble finding former patients who say the therapy didn’t work, that their parents forced them into therapy, and even that they were harmed by the therapy. The plaintiffs on the other hand I think will have a MUCH harder time finding patients who were “cured” enough to have their claims withstand cross examination (although possibly). And as I said, I would love to see NARTH therapiists take the stand 🙂
As far as the law growing to include adutls.; I don’t think so. I think (hope) this trial will do for SOCE therapy what the Dover decision did fo “creationism/Inteligent design)
I wonder Warren if you saw this It gets better video he must have went to Nicolosi as he says they flew out to California
http://youtu.be/FfJzgPw_HDI
Here is a new one from the Southern Poverty Law Center
http://youtu.be/VnO7c_d0ek8
If I were defending the law I would put David Pickup’s “Exorcize Away the Gay” videos on the stand. I guess we all have our favs
Ken – of course you are correct. I think though that it is a matter of time before efforts are made to ban therapy for adults.
I think there is so little research on the whole thing that it will be hard to prove much of anything. If I was defending the law, I would put Richard Cohen’s videos on the stand 🙂
“the recent efforts in CA to ban reparative therapy.”
to be clear, the law that was passed banning reparative (or any SOCE therapy) only applies to minors. And that is a significant point. Further, if the state’s lawyers are competent they will push to make the trail about the efficacy of the treatment which will NOT help NARTH at all.
If I were defending the law I would put David Pickup’s “Exorcize Away the Gay” videos on the stand. I guess we all have our favs
Ken – of course you are correct. I think though that it is a matter of time before efforts are made to ban therapy for adults.
I think there is so little research on the whole thing that it will be hard to prove much of anything. If I was defending the law, I would put Richard Cohen’s videos on the stand 🙂
“the recent efforts in CA to ban reparative therapy.”
to be clear, the law that was passed banning reparative (or any SOCE therapy) only applies to minors. And that is a significant point. Further, if the state’s lawyers are competent they will push to make the trail about the efficacy of the treatment which will NOT help NARTH at all.