massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Skeptical about Energy Work
Folks -
There previously was a discussion on this site in which a skeptical attitude toward energy work was being discussed, but that discussion eventually got deleted. The reason seems to be that it was judged not to belong in the location where it was taking place, which was inside one of the energy work groups.
I was the person who introduced the skepticism to the discussion. Some people did not appreciate that, but others did. Given how many participants there are on this site, and how many threads and groups are dedicated to discussing energy work with no skepticism, I thought maybe it was time to open a discussion where such skepticism is invited and welcomed.
I look forward to seeing how this discussion might develop. Is there interest?
-CM
There previously was a discussion on this site in which a skeptical attitude toward energy work was being discussed, but that discussion eventually got deleted. The reason seems to be that it was judged not to belong in the location where it was taking place, which was inside one of the energy work groups.
I was the person who introduced the skepticism to the discussion. Some people did not appreciate that, but others did. Given how many participants there are on this site, and how many threads and groups are dedicated to discussing energy work with no skepticism, I thought maybe it was time to open a discussion where such skepticism is invited and welcomed.
I look forward to seeing how this discussion might develop. Is there interest?
-CM
Views: 3109
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Julianna,
I think I sort of hinted that I thought an experiment on rats could have been good. I just want people to think about how it could have been good. So far there hasn't been much comment on the methodology, but maybe when Dr. Q gets back on it can be addressed.
As for the Schwartz critics? If he's a scientist then all that needs to be critiqued is his work, that's right. It shouldn't matter if he's into mediums. It also shouldn't really matter who his main critics are. He calls himself a scientist and his work involves scientific investigation. He writes books about it. His work is used as references all over our profession. It's time for us to put his work under the microscope and see if it's up to our standards.
The question we need to ask ourselves is just how high (or low) do we want those standards to be?
-
Permalink Reply by Deborah Herriage on
-
Or, maybe the question is, WHO determines these standards?
Vlad said:Julianna,
The question we need to ask ourselves is just how high (or low) do we want those standards to be?
-
-
Or, maybe the question is, WHO determines these standards?
Good point.
I'm a red squirrel, so I'm leaning towards the power of the people.
It might be idealistic, but if people arm themselves with knowledge on how to critique studies and use critical thinking skills then that's setting our own individual standards - that's a start and it's also empowering the individual. The standards of the profession are then set by the standards of the individual. So reading books on research methods and doing a bit of research on the research is key in my book. I'm not waiting on someone putting together a class for me and everyone knows that even if you go to a class there's no guarantee it's going to be of a high quality BUT hopefully quality classes on how to look at research with a discerning mind will be incorporated into core curricula down the road.
I'm throwing up Carls Baloney Detection Kit here for people to have a wee look at and possibly comment on since no one seems to be interested in looking at the rat study at the minute and I want to keep things kinda/sorta interesting (maybe?) until Dr. Q comes back on. Hopefully you'll find it at least worthy of a read.
I like the third point: "In science there are no "authorities""
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on
-
I've appreciated your comments Julianna. You've brought up some important cultural and historic observations that should not be denied in accessing this discussion.
Julianna Holden Mohler said:It seems pointless for me to post anything, but I wanted to agree with some things Deborah mentions.
Rats? Do rats have a will? What is their level of cognizance? Or e-coli for that matter? They're living things, yes. Hindus believe all life evolves and don't eat a cow because it might've been an ancestor. But even though I believe in reincarnation, that just seems silly to me. Anyway, I think energy work is a dance. It's not something performed on some helpless, brainless mass of cells. Of course, we could argue if rats are brainless or not. =) Intelligent on the level of survival, but...survival seems to be the lowest possible form of living.
I don't think there's "good" or "bad" living organisms. They can be perceived as bad if they cause death or destruction. But we need those as part of living too.
-
-
Forgive me for back tracking a bit but I'm back in school and buried deep in reading public health readings;and so am catching up.
Vlad you mentioned the sample size was very small. Here's something to consider. Schwartz has done several rat studies now and in the one I posted he observed 4 rats in three groups; 12. Then he replicated the procedure twice more; 36 rats if I remember and understood correctly. There are some moral and ethical implications here as he had to autopsy them for results. So maybe that's why so few??
The other article I posted was a review of many Reiki studies; a review holds a lot of weight as a result because it gives a concenus. The author listed Reiki effectiveness and also explained why not all research reviewed showed positive results; sounded quite open minded to me and readable.
-
-
Robin,
Can you see anything wrong with the methodology or statistical analysis in any of the studies?
Can anyone?
I didn't leave some comments in for the first study because I wanted people to CRITIQUE THE STUDY with the 3 rats.
Is this just a case of saying "Well, it's all OK. We'll go with that" with all the Schwartz studies? He did a bang up job of that one with the 3, didn't he?
Is it really OK to do that?
Am I the only therapist out of over how many thousands on this site that is going to say "There's something that could have made better OR there's something that needs to be dug into"?
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Muad'Dib will leave the statistical analysis to the researchers who are better at than than I. I do however have some questions about methodology, but don't have time to give a mindful critique right now.
Vlad said:Robin,
Can you see anything wrong with the methodology or statistical analysis in any of the studies? Can anyone?
I didn't leave some comments in for the first study because I wanted people to CRITIQUE THE STUDY with the 3 rats.
Is this just a case of saying "Well, it's all OK. We'll go with that" with all the Schwartz studies? He did a bang up job of that one with the 3, didn't he?
Is it really OK to do that?
Am I the only therapist out of over how many thousands on this site that is going to say "There's something that could have made better OR there's something that needs to be dug into"?
-
-
It's great you are questioning things, thinking critcally and demanding rigorous research in MT be after what we're interested in; that's most important.
Past that, I haven't read enough rat studies and will defer to Chris on your questions. It does seem to me they (rat studies) are effective at keeping confounders to a minimum; in other words good experimental control.
-
-
Vlad, I am going to read the rat studies today. As Bert said, I will defer to the scientists on the research, but I'll definitely check out the content.
Vlad said:Robin,
Can you see anything wrong with the methodology or statistical analysis in any of the studies?
Can anyone?
I didn't leave some comments in for the first study because I wanted people to CRITIQUE THE STUDY with the 3 rats.
Is this just a case of saying "Well, it's all OK. We'll go with that" with all the Schwartz studies? He did a bang up job of that one with the 3, didn't he?
Is it really OK to do that?
Am I the only therapist out of over how many thousands on this site that is going to say "There's something that could have made better OR there's something that needs to be dug into"?
-
-
I only said I would leave the statistical analysis to the researchers
Deborah Herriage said:Vlad, I am going to read the rat studies today. As Bert said, I will defer to the scientists on the research, but I'll definitely check out the content.
Vlad said:Robin,
Can you see anything wrong with the methodology or statistical analysis in any of the studies?
Can anyone?
I didn't leave some comments in for the first study because I wanted people to CRITIQUE THE STUDY with the 3 rats.
Is this just a case of saying "Well, it's all OK. We'll go with that" with all the Schwartz studies? He did a bang up job of that one with the 3, didn't he?
Is it really OK to do that?
Am I the only therapist out of over how many thousands on this site that is going to say "There's something that could have made better OR there's something that needs to be dug into"?
-
-
OK Vlad..... 3 rats it is!
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
