No not potentially help, you should read it: She said: "The most important finding of this study is that residential treatment for troubled adolescents has the potential to be extremely effective."
I did read it. The problem is that you emphasize "extrememly effective" and discard the qualifier "potentially."
Potentially means "with a possibility of becoming actual" as in "he is potentially dangerous" or "potentially useful."
It means, quite unequivocally,
"currently isn't." You have completely changed the meaning of words in the English language to support your position. This is an extreme fallacy in your argument. Please re-read what you wrote for comprehension. The
author states that currently the TBS modality is ineffective by saying it could
potentially be effective. This is unambiguously stating that
currently it is
not effective by definition, a conclusion born out by the collected data as described in my previous post.
That?s why it is important for people to read the study, I provided the link. Each person can come away with something different.
This is antithetical to the scientific method. If you claim the study is valid then you claim two things: one, it is repeatable, and two, it's results are not open to interpretation, they are documented fact. Your reasoning is fallacious. If the study is valid it simply is not open to interpretation.
What I see is a very clear indication that these programs are effective.
This is your opinion based on false premises. The study itself says the opposite and the data bear out the conlcusion that there is clinically significant maldaption after TBS treatment which proves that the TBS was not effective.
Your opinion, while you are entitled to it, is factually wrong, and provably so, from the reference you yourself provided.
This one I can not help you with, you will have to petition Colgate University for a peer review and work with them. Maybe they will back down on their conclusions.
This is simply ridiculous. This study is posted on a research website.
Nowhere does Colgate University make any claims about the validity or conclusions of this study. They only provided the bandwidth to post it. If you think otherwise, provide the link where Colgate (or anyone for that matter) says that this graduate student study represents the views or opinions of the university, or anyone else for that matter. That argument is a dead dog from the get-go.
So which one is the ?experienced degreed professional in psychiatry? that you were asking for to make them legitimate writers , in your previous post?
As I said before neither writer can effectively claim to be an authority on the subject, however, as compared on their
relative merit it is quite obvious that Ms. Szalavitz's work is in agreement with the available clinical research on adolescent treatment, while Mr. Marcus' work cites no studies or casework and provides only his opinoin based on a small sample of children for whom no follow-up testing or study was completed. Based on relative merit, Ms. Szalavitz's work is inherently more revealing and is buttressed by several scientific studies while Mr. Marcus makes no claims of the treatment's validity and cites no relevent research.
Clearly, you have no understanding of research science and have made completely invalid conclusions based on false premises and "doctored" language.
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are clearly wrong just as if you said 2+2=5. You are factually incorrect and facts are not open to interpretation. Your argument is fallacious in its entirety and therefore your conlusion is completely false.
