|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 02/22/2012 : 11:59:49
|
Zootherapy Debunked
The article concludes this way:
Pseudoscience
When brief psychotherapies were introduced in the 1960s, positive thinking was popularized almost to the point of becoming a religion. These therapeutic methods were not conceived to cure, but rather to soothe patients just enough so they could go back to work and lead a so-called normal life. Zootherapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which became trendy at that time, is an offshoot of this line of thinking.
Scientific language alone does not make a science. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the use of such language—along with sensationalism—to cover its failures.23
In spite of such critique, however, the perceived therapeutic benefits of animals continue to be regarded as fact, no questions asked, with a surprising and curious lack of skepticism. |
This is a great read, and really, pet ownership was something I kind of accepted as being generally good for you. A cure for cancer? No. I didn't believe that. But there is a lot here that I just took for granted as being beneficial to an overall wellbeing. Something positive.
So okay. Maybe our pets aren't providing us any benefits health-wise. But I still like my cat!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 06:48:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Zootherapy Debunked
The article concludes this way:
Pseudoscience
When brief psychotherapies were introduced in the 1960s, positive thinking was popularized almost to the point of becoming a religion. These therapeutic methods were not conceived to cure, but rather to soothe patients just enough so they could go back to work and lead a so-called normal life. Zootherapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which became trendy at that time, is an offshoot of this line of thinking.
Scientific language alone does not make a science. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the use of such language—along with sensationalism—to cover its failures.23
In spite of such critique, however, the perceived therapeutic benefits of animals continue to be regarded as fact, no questions asked, with a surprising and curious lack of skepticism. |
This is a great read, and really, pet ownership was something I kind of accepted as being generally good for you. A cure for cancer? No. I didn't believe that. But there is a lot here that I just took for granted as being beneficial to an overall wellbeing. Something positive.
So okay. Maybe our pets aren't providing us any benefits health-wise. But I still like my cat!
|
Seems to do wonders for the animals.
It would follow that the most successful stories of zootherapy working would be counted and those individuals who had to have their animals taken away (for the safety and well being of the animal) would not be. This leading to a confirmation bias in any study on the effacy of zootherapy.
It would instead be a predictive model on who has a psychosomatic component to their disability or condition. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Zootherapy Debunked
