Commentary on Kenneth Pope's Review

Pope ignores the book's central message that thousands of people are being harmed by recovered memory therapy and instead attempts to discredit personally several professionals who question recovered memory claims. This commentary examines the nature of science and scientific data relevant to recovered memory assumptions and concludes that many assumptions of recovered memory therapy are falsified. But these claims deeply divide the psychological community. Pope's review contributes nothing positive to the important issues involved and, instead, adds to the mistrust and anger surrounding this controversy. The method of alternate hypotheses and the Principle of Charity are suggested as more productive steps to decrease the polarization.