I think you may have misinterpreted what I (and many others) are advocating. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that techniques shouldn’t be taught. Techniques are like tools. You can’t do good work without them. But just having a good tool does not make you a good craftsman. You have to know how and why you use it. The “how and why” are the critical thinking and clinical reasoning skills that others advocate.
The problem I see is that most educational programs emphasize only the tools (techniques) themselves as the answer to all clinical problems. Without the clinical reasoning process (knowing and understanding why you do what you do), your techniques will not be as effective as they could be.
It is like the craftsman who has a chisel, saw, and router. They are all great tools, but if you don’t understand when to use each one to their most appropriate use, you certainly won’t do the best work you could be doing.
This concept is an important aspect of what you and Erik teach in your assessment methods as well. Determining the nature of the client’s pathology is critical thinking and clinical reasoning. From that point you choose an appropriate treatment strategy. You then apply the appropriate techniques that are most likely to produce effective results. I would assume you don’t just start doing a random series of techniques you have learned for that region of the body.
My argument has been that we need to teach much more clinical reasoning to balance the content that leans toward to tools (techniques).