Human Attitudes Towards Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: The Essential Tension
Between Science and Faith

by William L. Martens, Ph.D.


Introduction

At the first International Symposium on Dolphin Assisted Therapy, a conversation was begun in earnest regarding the nature and practice of dolphin-assisted therapy. Though this conversation was dominated by details of the therapeutic experiences of the symposium participants, there was a secondary concern that was revisited again and again throughout the course of the symposium. This secondary concern revolved around issues of human attitudes towards dolphin-assisted therapy. These issues are important for a number of reasons, but foremost is that they can determine whether individuals who might benefit from such therapy are able to gain access to it. The real and perceived value of dolphin-assisted therapy depends upon communication between all those involved in human-dolphin interaction, and that communication is hampered by attitudinal differences between people. The chief difference that hampered communication at the first dolphin assisted therapy symposium was between those participants with a scientific background and those more firmly grounded in their faith in techniques for which scientific evidence is unavailable. Having great respect for both scientific and more spiritually-oriented traditions, I have taken on the task of addressing this conflict directly.

In this presentation, I attempt to reconcile apparently antithetical ideas about the nature and value of dolphin-assisted therapy via an analysis of both psychological and political factors that shape human attitudes towards such disciplines. It is argued that the tension between the scientific perspective and the intuitive perspective is essential to the healthy growth of this important collaboration between humans and dolphins.


Scientific and Intuitive Perspectives

Last year I attended the first International Symposium on Dolphin Assisted Therapy. It was an inspiring event, and one that facilitated interaction between participants with widely differing backgrounds. What brought these participants together was their desire to make a difference in the lives of people who need the kind of help that dolphins are willing to offer. What this paper focuses upon is a conflict between two perspectives on dolphin-assisted therapy that threatens to interfere with the growth of this discipline. For the purposes of this discussion, the conflicting perspectives will be identified as scientific and intuitive. Whether this is the best characterization or not is open for discussion. In a previous draft of this short summary statement, I used the term dogmatic rather than intuitive, and subsequently rejected this characterization due to the negative connotation of that term. One reviewer of that pervious draft pointed out that scientists can also be dogmatic. I agree, and hasten to add that Science as a discipline is not dogmatic by definition. Nonetheless, the point is well taken: Despite the fact that Science is not dogmatic, scientists often are. It is equally important to point out that those who take the intuitive perspective are not entirely disdainful of the results of scientific investigation. And indeed, the research topic that a given scientist chooses to investigate is often based upon intuition regarding what is likely to be true (as opposed to what can be supported by scientific data). So given that most individuals could be viewed as appreciating both perspectives, I want to be clear that this distinction is offered here not as a means of labeling individuals, but as an aid toward mutual understanding between individuals who may exhibit different modes of thought and interaction.

The scientific perspective is typified by a tendency to trust only what can be supported by the results of rigorous investigation (most ideally though the application of scientific methods). The intuitive perspective is typified by acceptance on faith of opinions and beliefs for which scientific evidence is either unavailable or irrelevant (i.e., acceptance more on the basis of personal experience, common sense, or simply a "feeling"). Both of these perspectives are equally valid approaches to the formation of opinions and beliefs, and both modes of judgment are regarded as present in all of us. The primary difference is in our personal styles and temperaments. I argue that the intuitive perspective be associated with dogmatism on the grounds that views based upon intuition typically are not susceptible to refutation in the same manner as scientifically-based views are.

Some readers may be offended by this characterization. That is not a problem, as long as they are willing to keep an open mind and keep reading despite the judgments that form as they read. The reader is invited to entertain the notion that those judgments are not really theirs, but are placed into their awareness by a chattering little monkey that they need not listen to. Perhaps this statement will become more palatable if I elaborate further upon the apparent separation between people exhibiting these antithetical perspectives. Yes, scientists attempt to test hypotheses using objective methods; however, even the most reductionistic scientist chooses which hypotheses to test on the basis of wants, needs, and desires. The history of science is brimming with examples of scientific "facts" that were long held and passionately defended despite an abundance of contradictory evidence. In contrast, the wisdom contained in many spiritual traditions has been refined over time into opinions and beliefs that are highly appropriate and useful in everyday life. (The reader is referred to Donald Campbell's excellent paper entitled "The Shadow of Eternal Truth in Well-Winnowed Religious Faith"). It is almost as if the beliefs held on faith were evolved through a process of trial and error hypothesis testing. (Am I treading on dangerous ground here?)

So let's assume that we all operate according to both of these perspectives, and that we only differ in terms of the styles, temperaments, and terminology that we openly display, especially when concerned with negative reactions from peers within our respective groups (such as those sharing our profession, spiritual outlook, educational background, or perhaps social class). This also is not necessarily a problem, but it can and often does become a problem. The problem stems from the natural human tendency for one group of people to assume that another group of people sharing a different point of view must be on the wrong track. Whether the two points of view are actually associated with contradictory positions often does not enter into the consideration of the respective groups. The result is an unnecessary breakdown in communication or worse.

Why is this dilemma particularly important to participants in a symposium on dolphin-assisted therapy? The central reason is that the individuals who lean toward the scientific or intuitive perspective are afraid of being identified with the other perspective. This is ironic since most of the individuals drawn to this discipline have already shown a decided openness to embrace alternative therapies, and thus a certain willingness to brave the negative social sanctions that must come from their more conservative peers. Nonetheless, the consequences of being identified with the alternative perspective may be perceived as potentially disastrous. The range of possible outcomes include social ostracism, the loss of freedom to work in their field of choice, and even financial failure. This is so because of current social norms and mores particularly prevalent in Western Culture (and additionally, upon Western Medicine's emphasis upon dealing with acute trauma rather than maintaining wellness). There is little doubt that a belief in the healing power of the dolphin has come to be associated with New-Age sensibilities. Since in the scientific community this typically implies a kind of uncritical (or even irrational) thinking, those engaged in scientific research on dolphin-assisted therapy must tolerate peer attitudes that their work is somehow "flaky," regardless of the actual quality of their work.

Why should dolphin therapy be regarded with such suspicion and hesitation? Is there something markedly odd or unconventional about this type of therapy? Yes! It is odd in that autistic children, unreachable by conventional therapy, have shown marked improvement after a few sessions in the water with dolphins (see the case study reports by Dr. Elizabeth Smith). Are the reports on these case studies worth questioning? Of course they should be questioned. It is always wise to question the veracity of scientific reports, since we know that such reports are often skewed to support the hypothesis that the researcher favors. Does this mean that the reports are probably false? Not at all. The probability is that the reports contain much that is factual, and could be confirmed by an impartial investigation. A decision to focus upon those facts that make the author's arguments most cogent is natural and perhaps even desirable. Shouldn't a responsible report present arguments supporting alternate hypotheses, such as the possible involvement of a placebo effect? Rather than continue this dialogue indefinitely, I'll end this dialogue with a quote from Dr. Dave Warner: "Don't knock those placebos, they really work!"

Conclusion

What should be done about our differences in perspective? Well, a good start would be to respect each other despite our differences. More than that, we might even celebrate our differences: "It is not necessary, nor even desirable, that we should all think and feel the same - our diversity of thought and opinion is a blessing" (Donna Brewster, personal communication). Will there be continued tension between the scientific and intuitive perspectives? Absolutely. And well there should be. Without this essential tension, we could become too narrow in our views, inhibiting interaction and precluding the kind of teamwork upon which the discipline will thrive. Also, we should not have to fear being associated with any one group. Both scientific and intuitive perspectives are well represented at this and last year's International Symposium on Dolphin Assisted Therapy. I urge us all to keep in front of us the primary reason that brought us together - the desire to make a difference in the lives of people who need the kind of help that dolphins are willing to offer.


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Paras Kaul, Peggy Bartlett, and Donna Brewster for their comments on a previous draft of this paper.

Back to 1996 Symposium Main Page
Up to AquaThought Home Page