OCF, Proof, and Kuhn's Revolutions.

[paramed2premed]

I was looking through old threads on the controversy over CST or OCF or whatever, and a comment of Stillfocussed struck me. He was describing the setting of Sutherland's development of cranial stuff as weird. He cautioned, however, that Kuhn, amongst many historians of science, distinguishes between the context of discovery and the context of justification.

I am a big Kuhn "fan," and this got me thinking about how OCF/CST fits into his general program. To be specific, it seems that it will be helpful in explaining why OCF/CST has not found widespread acceptance, even, apparently, among osteopaths.

This is not an attempt to reignite a Dr Nick/Stillfocussed debate (although that made for a he11 of a read!), but rather a discussion about why OCF/CST is marginialized, not whether it should or shouldn't be.

If this seems like just too much intellectual bullshot, sorry! I was inspired by the erudute tete-a-tete found on this forum.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[paramed2premed]

Yeah, ok. Perhaps I had to much coffee when I posted this.

I take no offense.

Just in case some "big Kuhn fan" stumbles across this thread, I'll postpone deleting my posts.

I'm not holding my breath though.