ABSTRACT
The human psyche is influenced by an extraordinary complexity of experiences. Many would therefore maintain that we can never completely understand another human being. As scientist-practitioners, is our purported allegiance to, and reliance upon, ‘official’ sources of knowledge (including theory and scientific evidence) sufficient for us to be confident that we can construct consistently helpful solutions from the myriad clinical data at our fingertips? Should we as psychologists accept that full understanding of causality is simply not an achievable objective? If we adopt the position that we can never fully explain causes, however, what role do we actually play? Can our interventions even be considered valid, let alone scientific?
