| Abstract: | Three fault lines traverse inquiries into empirically supported therapies, along which pro and contra positions can be taken. First, failure to distinguish scientific from artistic properties of therapy has lead to neglect of pervasive personological and cultural variables that are implicated in this field of inquiry. Second, scientific anomalies result from focusing more on what ESTs are than on how they effect change. Psyche is portrayed as a humanistic Cartesian place-holder for an encroaching neuro-endocrinological and systemic understanding of human experiencing. Third, the EST movement is seen as a socio-political and business model, confounded with and eroding scientific objectives. |
