Gee, Wolfgang, I am very sorry to flout accredited authority. I can only say what I have (as far as I know) observed in personal experience, but of course that doesn't account for much. :>)

However I can add that I have seen succesful application of the theory in application. But that might not count for much, either I guess. But I can't help but wonder where you get off casting aspersions about the "uninformed" while at the same time all your deep studies seem to come down to is controversial chewing up of interpretations versus other interpretations, and, as you say, a nonconsensual debate between the scientists on one hand and the therapists on the other. I doubt either side has taken much time to think about the huge difference in methodology which informs these two camps; one is primarily informed by the will to help, and uses tools in doing so that may come from anywhere in the spectum of human communication. You may or may not have a sense of how wide that spectrum is, and how unscientific some of its most useful and effective elements are. I wouldn't presume to judge. The other is motivated to acheive other standards altogether such as replicability, statistical validity (if that is not an oxymoron), logical preponderance and repeatable evidentiary patterns from tightly controlled circumstances.

Given this disparity in tools, purpose, intent, standards of success, and relationship to the human experience into which both sides claim to be looking, I would think twice before I started passing out judgements about who is "uninformed". While I have very high respect for good scientific methodology I have none for meretricious or sanctimonous assertions of superiority where no real-world results are being presented to support the claim. So if you will excuse me, I'll just sashay out of this gilded mockery of a courtroom and go jine up with the therapists.

Regards,

Amos