This is called «experiment» because nobody knows how this will finish acording to existencial aproach . This is not about «experiment» with controlled situation
@bobthemage I just wouldn't call it 'experiment'. In the 1951 book Gestalt Therapy by Perls, Goodman and Hefferline, Fritz talks about experiment and gives a poor definition of experiment (in a scientific sense). On page 13 or so (julian edition which I don't have in front of me) he also says that the therapist is a catalyst for the client's reaction - again, comparing the certainty of a chemical reaction with therapy outcome. Don't you think he's wrapping his 'art' in scientific clothing?
Oh...so many questions - why not be a bit skeptical? At about 0.33 there is mention of "...to sort of plan...suggest". Please, let's remember the lessons of the Recovered Memory Therapy fiasco in the early 1990s (read Elizabeth Loftus's book). And by experiment at 1:31 - why label a technique an 'experiment'? Perhaps it is to provide a veil of sorts - to sound scientific or valid or weighty. Hmm - what about 'controlled experiment? There is nothing 'experimental' in Gestalt - it is situational
@bobthemage Why call it 'experiment' with the association of legitimacy attached to that? In the 1951 text Gestalt Therapy (Julian Press), Fritz et al also state that the therapist is a catalyst for the 'patient' like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. Then, in the same book, Perls also discusses the origins of experience and experiment - stretching the definition. Why bring up science - why not say that this therapy is not under the same criteria or burden of evidence required in a science?
This is called «experiment» because nobody knows how this will finish acording to existencial aproach . This is not about «experiment» with controlled situation
@bobthemage I just wouldn't call it 'experiment'. In the 1951 book Gestalt Therapy by Perls, Goodman and Hefferline, Fritz talks about experiment and gives a poor definition of experiment (in a scientific sense). On page 13 or so (julian edition which I don't have in front of me) he also says that the therapist is a catalyst for the client's reaction - again, comparing the certainty of a chemical reaction with therapy outcome. Don't you think he's wrapping his 'art' in scientific clothing?
Oh...so many questions - why not be a bit skeptical? At about 0.33 there is mention of "...to sort of plan...suggest". Please, let's remember the lessons of the Recovered Memory Therapy fiasco in the early 1990s (read Elizabeth Loftus's book). And by experiment at 1:31 - why label a technique an 'experiment'? Perhaps it is to provide a veil of sorts - to sound scientific or valid or weighty. Hmm - what about 'controlled experiment? There is nothing 'experimental' in Gestalt - it is situational
@bobthemage
Why call it 'experiment' with the association of legitimacy attached to that? In the 1951 text Gestalt Therapy (Julian Press), Fritz et al also state that the therapist is a catalyst for the 'patient' like a catalyst in a chemical reaction. Then, in the same book, Perls also discusses the origins of experience and experiment - stretching the definition. Why bring up science - why not say that this therapy is not under the same criteria or burden of evidence required in a science?