SLP is an acronym for the term Speech Language Pathology and it is used to treat disorders that are related to communication. Problems related to speech and even swallowing disorders are a few of the problems which Speech Language Pathology is used to take care of. The professional who is a specialist in Speech Language Pathology is referred to as a Speech and Language Pathologist and he or she is the one who is designated the task of improving the communication ability of the patient. The Speech and Language Pathologists are also referred to as speech therapists. Speech and Language Pathologists are well trained in the techniques which are applied when one requires correction of the speech, use of language and even ingest food. Speech disorders have been categorized into different classes by experts. Problems like voice disorders which basically include problems with a persons pitch when talking , the volume produced when communicating and even the time that sound is heard are corrected using Speech Language Pathology. The same technique is used when one has problems with articulation and fluency when it comes to sound production. The main duties of the Speech and Language Pathologists are to screen and cure the patients who are going through any of these problems (Johnson, 2007).
Professionals have gone further to categorize the language disorders in two categories receptive and expressive disorder. Receptive language disorders are basically the hardships that one faces when trying to understand or even process language when talking whereas expressive refers to the problems one faces when trying to articulate and join words. Speech therapists have been trained to evaluate the patients speech and even swallowing habits and detect where the problem is and this in turn helps in solving the problem.
In order to solve these problems, therapists have come up with several techniques which they use to solve speech, language and swallowing problems. These include articulation therapy which is usually used on children who have problems in articulation. Therapists involve them in exercises mostly while playing games, which are meant to improve their articulation and speech production. Feeding therapy on the other hand is a technique used to solve the problems that one faces when swallowing anything. This therapy is basically used in making the muscles in the mouth stronger. For children, activities used to improve use of language have proven quite effective (Nelson, 2008).
FALLACIES OF CASUAL REASONING
When it comes to speech therapy, several fallacies have been identified, but the most influential fallacies have to do with casual reasoning which is important when it comes to therapy. Several examples of problematic reasoning have been discussed, but packman has come up with a way of pin pointing ones that are relevant and influence stuttering in speech which is a very common problem when it comes to Speech Language Pathology. The post hoc fallacy has been a great contribution in this argument and is thus used mostly as a relevant example and reference when it comes to casual reasoning discussions. This fallacy is supported by things like distal and proximal causes and even excessive simplification when it comes to casual relations (Packman, 2004).
The post hoc fallacy is more or less the most widely known fallacy when it comes to relating casual reasoning and stuttering. This fallacy mainly tries to discuss how an event can easily be the sole reason for another to take place, just because they follow each other in succession. Much as any temporary relationship is a sign of a casual connection, and the theory that effects are as a result of a cause is just but an assumption in the scientific field, this fallacy still holds water when it comes to Speech Language Pathology. However, it is not right to rely on the thought that one only needs to have a temporary relationship with another for him or her to end up in a casual relationship as it is just the same as supporting the thought that day is simply there because it comes after night and vice versa which has been supported by other facts in science and not just this theory.
Packman goes further to discuss this fallacy by stating that the necessary conditions in any situation have to be intact for an event to take place. Without these conditions necessary ones, it is not easy for an event to take place. However, he goes further to state that necessary and sufficient should not be used interchangeably as they each have a different meaning. For instance, when it comes to problems that deal with stuttering, some people have urged that there has to be some genetically related pre dispositions for one to experience speech related problems that eventually lead to stuttering. Much as it has proven true in some situations, other cases have disapproved this theory as there have been other factors apart from genetic conditions that have led to stuttering in patients. In theses cases, genetic predisposition has been cited as a necessary condition for stuttering to occur while other factors have been used as sufficient. If this is true that genetic predisposition is a necessary condition, then there is a probability that one who is genetically predisposed might or might not end up stuttering eventually. On the other hand, if we take the other predisposing factors as the sufficient factors, then the people who are genetically predisposed should never stutter unless the other factors are present. In addition to this, the sufficient factors could also be just enough to cause on to stutter. With these in place, then this fallacy can never be empirically used to demonstrate stuttering as whether more genetically related or not.
In stuttering, several terminologies are used. Terms like distal are used to describe a necessary condition. On the other hand, proximal has been used to describe conditions that act like a trigger when it comes to stuttering problems. When talking about stuttering, professionals have proposed that constitutional factors like a problem in language processing and articulation are referred to as the necessary factors. However, these factors should be considered in events where stuttering is not very distal.
At times, parents claim that their children started stuttering after an event like a dog bite but this cannot be considered a necessary factor as there are no essential links to the event that led to stuttering. A traumatic experience cannot be considered a necessary factor as it has to be coupled with other factors that have been proven necessary when it comes to stutter problems. For an experience to be considered a necessary factor when it comes to stuttering, no matter how traumatic it is, it has to be coupled with a logical explanation that will still stand years after the stutter. Confusion can be brought about when discussing causes and the effects when one does not distinguish between an effect and a cause. Apart from that, the failure of realizing that there is a possibility of a mutual casual relationship between two factors can also be a cause of confusion when it comes to this fallacy. For instance, professionals have argued that the difference between those people who stutter and those who are not faced with the problem of stuttering does not come as a result of anything but the cause of the stutter. This went a long way in packmans discussion (Packman, 2000) when he tried to prove that the features that are related to a medical problem do not have to be linked in any way to its cause.
When it comes to reasoning, experts argue that the results from a cause are what should be used when coming to any conclusions in stuttering. This is because the effects of the stutter should be the ones used when coming to any conclusion about the cause of the stutter. Much as this has gone a long way when it comes to reasoning in case of stuttering, it is important that one does not use it as a critical point when it comes to finding out the major causes of stuttering.
In circular reasoning, there is usually a high chance that one may fail to define the difference between the cause and the effect of the stutter disorder. For instance, this is commonly used when one tries to explain just how stuttering is as a result of a problem when it comes to being fluent in speech. In this case, the cause of stuttering and the effect of stuttering cannot be differentiated or used separately as a deficiency in fluency can be used as a definition of stuttering. However, in other case, the cause and the effect should be well differentiated.
Professionals have gone further to categorize the language disorders in two categories receptive and expressive disorder. Receptive language disorders are basically the hardships that one faces when trying to understand or even process language when talking whereas expressive refers to the problems one faces when trying to articulate and join words. Speech therapists have been trained to evaluate the patients speech and even swallowing habits and detect where the problem is and this in turn helps in solving the problem.
In order to solve these problems, therapists have come up with several techniques which they use to solve speech, language and swallowing problems. These include articulation therapy which is usually used on children who have problems in articulation. Therapists involve them in exercises mostly while playing games, which are meant to improve their articulation and speech production. Feeding therapy on the other hand is a technique used to solve the problems that one faces when swallowing anything. This therapy is basically used in making the muscles in the mouth stronger. For children, activities used to improve use of language have proven quite effective (Nelson, 2008).
FALLACIES OF CASUAL REASONING
When it comes to speech therapy, several fallacies have been identified, but the most influential fallacies have to do with casual reasoning which is important when it comes to therapy. Several examples of problematic reasoning have been discussed, but packman has come up with a way of pin pointing ones that are relevant and influence stuttering in speech which is a very common problem when it comes to Speech Language Pathology. The post hoc fallacy has been a great contribution in this argument and is thus used mostly as a relevant example and reference when it comes to casual reasoning discussions. This fallacy is supported by things like distal and proximal causes and even excessive simplification when it comes to casual relations (Packman, 2004).
The post hoc fallacy is more or less the most widely known fallacy when it comes to relating casual reasoning and stuttering. This fallacy mainly tries to discuss how an event can easily be the sole reason for another to take place, just because they follow each other in succession. Much as any temporary relationship is a sign of a casual connection, and the theory that effects are as a result of a cause is just but an assumption in the scientific field, this fallacy still holds water when it comes to Speech Language Pathology. However, it is not right to rely on the thought that one only needs to have a temporary relationship with another for him or her to end up in a casual relationship as it is just the same as supporting the thought that day is simply there because it comes after night and vice versa which has been supported by other facts in science and not just this theory.
Packman goes further to discuss this fallacy by stating that the necessary conditions in any situation have to be intact for an event to take place. Without these conditions necessary ones, it is not easy for an event to take place. However, he goes further to state that necessary and sufficient should not be used interchangeably as they each have a different meaning. For instance, when it comes to problems that deal with stuttering, some people have urged that there has to be some genetically related pre dispositions for one to experience speech related problems that eventually lead to stuttering. Much as it has proven true in some situations, other cases have disapproved this theory as there have been other factors apart from genetic conditions that have led to stuttering in patients. In theses cases, genetic predisposition has been cited as a necessary condition for stuttering to occur while other factors have been used as sufficient. If this is true that genetic predisposition is a necessary condition, then there is a probability that one who is genetically predisposed might or might not end up stuttering eventually. On the other hand, if we take the other predisposing factors as the sufficient factors, then the people who are genetically predisposed should never stutter unless the other factors are present. In addition to this, the sufficient factors could also be just enough to cause on to stutter. With these in place, then this fallacy can never be empirically used to demonstrate stuttering as whether more genetically related or not.
In stuttering, several terminologies are used. Terms like distal are used to describe a necessary condition. On the other hand, proximal has been used to describe conditions that act like a trigger when it comes to stuttering problems. When talking about stuttering, professionals have proposed that constitutional factors like a problem in language processing and articulation are referred to as the necessary factors. However, these factors should be considered in events where stuttering is not very distal.
At times, parents claim that their children started stuttering after an event like a dog bite but this cannot be considered a necessary factor as there are no essential links to the event that led to stuttering. A traumatic experience cannot be considered a necessary factor as it has to be coupled with other factors that have been proven necessary when it comes to stutter problems. For an experience to be considered a necessary factor when it comes to stuttering, no matter how traumatic it is, it has to be coupled with a logical explanation that will still stand years after the stutter. Confusion can be brought about when discussing causes and the effects when one does not distinguish between an effect and a cause. Apart from that, the failure of realizing that there is a possibility of a mutual casual relationship between two factors can also be a cause of confusion when it comes to this fallacy. For instance, professionals have argued that the difference between those people who stutter and those who are not faced with the problem of stuttering does not come as a result of anything but the cause of the stutter. This went a long way in packmans discussion (Packman, 2000) when he tried to prove that the features that are related to a medical problem do not have to be linked in any way to its cause.
When it comes to reasoning, experts argue that the results from a cause are what should be used when coming to any conclusions in stuttering. This is because the effects of the stutter should be the ones used when coming to any conclusion about the cause of the stutter. Much as this has gone a long way when it comes to reasoning in case of stuttering, it is important that one does not use it as a critical point when it comes to finding out the major causes of stuttering.
In circular reasoning, there is usually a high chance that one may fail to define the difference between the cause and the effect of the stutter disorder. For instance, this is commonly used when one tries to explain just how stuttering is as a result of a problem when it comes to being fluent in speech. In this case, the cause of stuttering and the effect of stuttering cannot be differentiated or used separately as a deficiency in fluency can be used as a definition of stuttering. However, in other case, the cause and the effect should be well differentiated.
No comments:
Post a Comment