On the Importance of Scientific Rhetoric in Stuttering: A Reply to Finn, Bothe, and Bramlett (2005)

Abstract

To refute the alleged practice of "pseudoscience" by P. Finn, A. K. Bothe, and R. E. Bramlett (2005) and to illustrate their experimental and systematic bias when evaluating the SpeechEasy, an altered auditory feedback device used in the management of stuttering. We challenged the experimental design that led to the seemingly predetermined outcome of pseudoscience rather than science: Limited preselected literature was submitted to a purposely sampled panel of judges (i.e., their own students). Each criterion deemed pseudoscientific was contested with published peer-reviewed data illustrating the importance of good rhetoric, testability, and logical outcomes from decades of scientific research. Stuttering is an involuntary disorder that is highly resistant to therapy. Altered auditory feedback is a derivation of choral speech (nature's most powerful stuttering "inhibitor") that can be synergistically combined with other methods for optimal stuttering inhibition. This approach is logical considering that in stuttering no single treatment is universally helpful. Also, caution is suggested when attempting to differentiate science from pseudoscience in stuttering treatments using the criteria employed by Finn et al. For example, evaluating behavioral therapy outcomes implements a post hoc or untestable system. Speech outcome (i.e., stuttered or fluent speech) determines success or failure of technique use, placing responsibility for failure on those who stutter.