Saturday, June 19, 2010

Science vs Accepted Science

Dr. Clancy figured she knew what she would find: “Everything I knew dictated that the abuse should be a horrible experience, that the child should be traumatized at the time it was happening — overwhelmed with fear, shock, horror.”

But many carefully documented interviews revealed nothing of the sort. Commonly, the abuse had been confusing for the child but not traumatic in the usual sense of the word. Only when the child grew old enough to understand exactly what had happened — sometimes many years later — did the fear, shock and horror begin. And only at that point did the experience become traumatic and begin its well-known destructive process.

Dr. Clancy questioned her findings, reconfirmed them and was convinced. Her audience, when she made the data public, was outraged.

It can be dangerous to question the status quo, yes, yes. People get very upset if you have data that questions what they know, whether the issue at hand is religious or otherwise.

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?