Abstract
This article offers an alternative understanding of the ‘scientist‐practitioner’ in clinical practice. The ‘dodo bird’ hypothesis or ‘common factors’ findings suggest that the specific technique of a particular treatment protocol, whether supported or not by empirical validation, are not as important as feedback to the clinician as to whether this particular treatment is working or not. A new philosophy of science and cognition suggests that ‘know‐how’ and ‘withness‐knowledge’ is of more importance than any ‘know‐that’ or ‘aboutness’ knowledge. Two hundred years ago Goethe suggested a method of science that was more focused on performativity than representationalism, which is being discovered again by postmodern science and philosophy. This model of science, combined with Levinas' call for an ethics first approach, can provide an alternative to the move towards treatment manuals.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
