massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
The "New Biology" and Massage
Views: 543
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Please don't put words in my mouth. I called it enlightening and empowering. I also said that I find it relevant to the healing arts. In a previous post (about cell memory) I referred to the possibilities this type of work creates.
It's easy to post a question asking for level of acceptance on the decades of work that this PhD in Biology has done, or the books he has written and the lectures he has given, but isn't it a bit illogical to ask that? What would be a satisfactory level of acceptance? Would 98.76% be good? or would 63.75% be a better number? How much sense does that make? But you write under a pseudonym, so you can ask and say whatever you want, I guess.
In a world of pseudo-science, where so many people like to dismiss evidence because it does not support newtonian physics or Darwinian evolution, I find it enlightening and empowering to hear another point of view, especially when it supports evidence and human experience. Even more so, when that point of view comes from a biologist who was doing this type of work while I was still in grammar school. But that's me. I like to learn and to explore. You can just come here and ask for a summary, pretending to be a squirrel. Whatever.
Vlad said:"You guys can't find any holes in any of it.
Fair enough. We'll leave it at that. "
-
-
Just some clarification, in response to a private message about the last paragraph.
Indeed by "pseudo-science" I was referring to a bunch (not all!) of evidence-based folk within massage therapy who on 500 (or even 3000) hours of massage training want to play MDs and PhDs. They want to tell people what to say and what not to say, just like religious leaders and totalitarian govmts did for years. And just as with the pot calling the kettle black, they call evidence that is not explained by traditional theories 'pseudo-science'. They say that those who don't obey "established" truths, that they deserve a "verbal thumping". Well, here is some verbal thumping: don't wear the term evidence-based on your sleave, if you couldn't recognize evidence even it bit you in the butt. As far as Dr. Lipton goes, he makes several good points. Those who have ears let them hear..... Returning to my three jobs now. Cheers!
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Emmanuel - be sure to update the wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience when you get a chance.
Cheers.
-
Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on
-
79.23%
It started lower but its gone up each time I reviewed it.....dam it.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on
-
Im more inclined towards 79.7%
-
Permalink Reply by Gary W Addis, LMT on
-
Don't think anyone searched for holes in the argument. If, however, you are pointing the discussion in the direction of "tapping" used in conjunction with psychological counseling, this layman agrees with many experts in the field of psychiatry who question the efficacy of this "miraculous" treatment. You don't develop cancer overnight; I don't think anyone is going to cure PTSD instantaneously.
Vlad said:
Since everyone seems to like what he's saying - can any of you find any holes in his argument?
-
-
Heck Gordon, I'm gonna have to veiw it again, cant have an energy skeptic appreciating Lipton more than me:)
Gordon J. Wallis said:Im more inclined towards 79.7%
-
-
Well said, Emmanuel.
Emmanuel Bistas said:
Please don't put words in my mouth. I called it enlightening and empowering. I also said that I find it relevant to the healing arts. In a previous post (about cell memory) I referred to the possibilities this type of work creates.
It's easy to post a question asking for level of acceptance on the decades of work that this PhD in Biology has done, or the books he has written and the lectures he has given, but isn't it a bit illogical to ask that? What would be a satisfactory level of acceptance? Would 98.76% be good? or would 63.75% be a better number? How much sense does that make? But you write under a pseudonym, so you can ask and say whatever you want, I guess.
In a world of pseudo-science, where so many people like to dismiss evidence because it does not support newtonian physics or Darwinian evolution, I find it enlightening and empowering to hear another point of view, especially when it supports evidence and human experience. Even more so, when that point of view comes from a biologist who was doing this type of work while I was still in grammar school. But that's me. I like to learn and to explore. You can just come here and ask for a summary, pretending to be a squirrel. Whatever.
Vlad said:"You guys can't find any holes in any of it.
Fair enough. We'll leave it at that. "
-
-
This LB stuff fits in with what ought to be known as established fact that for one muscle to contract, its opposing muscle must relax, and when a muscle is forced to relax, achieving release in its TrPs ought to be easier.
-
-
It will not be necessary Vlad. The definition offered by Cambridge Dictionary Online ("a system of thought or a theory which is not formed in a scientific way") will suffice.Some more reading on the same topic: Time magazine article on epigenetics (last year) and New York Times article on Darwinism
Vlad said:Emmanuel - be sure to update the wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience when you get a chance.
Cheers.
-
-
Congrates Emmanuel
Dr Mark Ellis Neurological Chiropractor gave a presentation on the brain and how we as MT's can work towards expanding our Knowledge and hands on skills in this field on http://worldmassageconference.com .He advocates re thinking cell function very much in line with Bruce Liptons thinking and Epigenetics.
Hi Vlad
I'm assuming those in charge of the conference have exercised due dilligence before offering this presenter the WMC platform. Wouldyou take the time to specify what might be wrong with this ?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
