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 Christopher A. Moyer on
-
People have been, and are still, very interested in energy work; and NO ONE'S TESTING IT SUFFICIENTLY.
There are some good reasons why scientists aren't testing it. I think I've mentioned some of them in the early part of this thread. Keith has also stated them in his own fashion. Put briefly, the assumptions of energy work aren't tenable.
We've heard from many experienced and skilled professional MT's on this site who attest to it's effectiveness.
No doubt. There are also folks who swear by astrology, facilitated communication, EMDR, and mind reading, too. But all of those things have one thing in common - they can be (and have been) easily disproven by means of experiment.
Maybe you could help Laura with her design, since she's able and willing, and recall the suggestions we've made, and let's see what happens.
I think we are helping her. Are we, Laura?
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Chris,
This is a clarification of what I wrote in a confusing manner. I deleted the rest of this message thread in the interest of space.
I wrote: (improperly worded)
rather than insisting on the RCT and "Null Hypothesis Test" as the only legitimate means of testing anything. I also submit even this does not go far enough in considering factors that cannot be consistently reproduced mechanically, like pharmaceuticals.
Your response:
As for the assertion that pharmaceuticals are somehow not mechanical, I'm not even sure what to say in response to that. How do they work, then? Magic?
I agree with you, I just blew the wording. I was actually saying that pharmaceuticals do have mechanical effect. (by chemical response) I should have worded "as pharmaceuticals are" or just reworded entirely.
I will work on the rest or your response soon. Whew! I may go for one point at a time!
-
-
Bert -
Thanks for the clarification, and I hope I wasn't being too snarky when I asked if magic was your alternate explanation to mechanics. I find that a little snark here and there can be clarifying itself!
-
-
Chris,
Your assertion:
The RCT is a specific example of an experiment. If we want to determine a cause and effect relationship, there is only one research design known that is capable of doing that (in other words, that is capable of ruling out all other explanations for the observed phenomenon), and that is the experiment. This is not a controversial statement. If you disagree, it is incumbent on you to show, specifically, how a different research design could possibly control for all confounding explanations for a phenomenon.
This also carries the assumption that the given phenomenon to be studied acts independently. I would also assert that although in some cases RCT's have been shown to rule out other explanations, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that this is true in any specific study. RCT's are used by scientists IN THE FIELD OF STUDY when appropriate for the experiment. The Study design I proposed is in effect, inverted. We simply create 2 identical groups then remove ONE component from one group and observe the difference. The 3rd group of energy work alone serves as a control to assess what energy work alone achieves. I challenge you to provide evidence that this is not viable in the case we are discussing.
Depending on your answer, I may have another challenge for you.
By your assertion of RCT infallibility, If you were to create a study of the effects of sodium chloride (NaCl), you could create one group that used NaCl, one group that used only sodium Na and another that only used only chloride Cl and then would be able to determine which element (Na or Cl) was the effective agent in the results observed in the NaCl group. I will bet the ranch that is NOT viable.
-
Permalink Reply by Julianna Holden Mohler on
-
Emmanuel Bistas said:Marilyn,
The book "The Field: The quest for the secret force of the universe" by Lynn McTaggard has a great deal of references to scientific papers and other sources. It is written by a journalist, so it is not as hard to follow as the actual sources that it cites.
I took part in Lynn's Intention Experiment. It was amazing and unexplainable, regardless of any actual results of where our intention was directed. When we were concentrating the intent for cooperation, I had crazy cool things happen to me personally, strangers out of the blue walk up to me and offer help of some kind. Intention is everything.
-
-
Vlad said:Um...I don't think I said that, but hey, sounds good to me!
I have a question about different types of energy work that I'm just throwing into this thread since it might be an interesting addition. And remember that this question comes from someone totally ignorant in it. Is there a common denominator theory between multiple forms of energy work? I remember talking once to a very experienced teacher who taught reiki and has taken classes in other energy modalities (I didn't take their energy class, but I had other classes from them - she's a great teacher) who said that with the energy work there is a big overlap. She described it as being at the top level and she said that craniosacral, reiki and even myofascial release had this overlap. I think she mentioned another one, but I can't remember what it was.
Anyone have an opinion on that?
Sounds like silliness to me. Energy is energy. Only the physical forms of accessing are what's different.
-
-
To be scientifically accurate, squirrels are not nuts. They eat nuts. Big difference there, Mr. Objectivity. =)
Christopher A. Moyer said:Vlad said:Do Squirrels have QI? Course we do! We've got more qi than humans. You humans are virtually qi-less compared to us!
Squirrels have many fine qualities.
They're also nuts. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Denea on
-
In respnse to-
Bodhi shared this on the science-site, just thought I'd post it here- comments? Agree? Disagree? General thoughts? Might provide more good discussion.
Alternative Therapies Debunked or Denounced in 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091212/sc_livescience/alterna...
If there's a silver lining in the continued popularity of non-scientific healing techniques, it's the fact that the scientific community is at long last putting these so-called treatments and potions through vigorous testing. And one by one they fail to live up to their purported benefits.
Here are five alternative therapies that were debunked or denounced in 2009.
Reiki
Reiki is a spiritual practice developed in Japan in the early 20th century that, in the hands of Westerners, has evolved into a new-age healing practice. Popular in Hawaii and California by the 1970s, reiki has since become a staple at health spas and in granola-loving cities across the United States..........ect.
Reiki involves a practitioner (that is, someone who has taken a couple days of training) who places her hands on or just above a patient's body to transmit healing energy - the "ki" or reiki, better known as qi in Chinese traditional medicine. Reiki has all the trappings of new-age healing: restoring balance and instilling life energy through mysticism and/or vibrational energy. Akin to a hands-off massage, reiki is said to relieve stress, fatigue and depression and promote self-healing for just about any disease, including cancer.
The thing is- with in the first paragraph the author of this clearly shows a bias using sayings such as "granola- loving cities"
and "someone who has taken a couple days of TRAINING" this person is obviously not familiar in the slightest with the subject at hand
Again the point should be stressed that if the practitioner and client alike are aware of and feel the effects then why does science even matter beyond trying to convince the unconvinced? And of course the Catholic church would find it to be rubbish, after all it is the same establishment that believes that those of us who do believe in these things go to purgatory, and the same establishment that lead with a golden torch,the destruction of such beliefs and murder of such believers (pagans to name one)
I am sorry but this really hit my d*ck nerve- to many trigger words
-
-
This is a bit lengthy due to catching up on all that’s been written so far.
I see massage therapy as both an art and a science. For example, if I take a course in art – painting – I can learn all the science behind it, such as the color wheel, blending colors, strokes, the types of brushes, how to make a canvas and all the rest. But just because I take a course doesn’t mean I’ll automatically become a famous or good artist. What characteristic made Van Gogh the type of artist he was? He, and other artists, claim divine inspiration. You can’t prove them right nor wrong in their assertion of the divine, you can only witness the result.
Someone taking music lessons can learn all the notes, chords, rhythms, but again – who puts that spark of genius there? Mozart claimed divine inspiration – perhaps his father would disagree since he tutored his own son. But I believe these are things that can’t be taught, they can only be experienced.
I could say the same thing about psychology training. It’s very much a field of the unknown, a bunch of hunches where humans are used as guinea pigs. Are you able to pin down exactly what makes a human mind heal during a counseling session? What was the “aha” that made a person shift from one state of mind to another? Can anyone really say? If psychology were an exact science, then why aren’t all humans that have sessions healed? Maybe you should start an article on the inexact science in the field you’re in, where there are a bunch of belief systems that include energy work as well? No two psychologists are equal in neither understanding nor abilities.
So this leads me to question why you’re using a different profession than your own to experiment with? What are you avoiding in yourself? We have no answers for you because you’re already convinced and are seeking to reinforce your own beliefs. You aren’t approaching this objectively in any way. You’ve repeatedly declared you don’t think energy exists. So you’ve already affected the outcome of your “research.” I have no need to convince you of anything. I know what my clients have experienced even when I, myself, am skeptical. That’s all that really matters is the results.
It’s my experience that someone doesn’t feel energy work when they aren’t open to receiving. If you haven’t given the permission, whether consciously or unconsciously, then I can’t assert my will over yours. If you’re self-convinced that energy work is hooey and you can’t feel anything, the universe will grant you your pre-supposed beliefs by feeling nothing.
While we’re on the topic, the person that said someone came up behind them and did energy work without your permission or knowledge, I have an ethical dilemma about that one. Apparently you were open on some level, but that person went past a boundary. They didn’t have your informed consent, and that’s wrong in my book, even if you felt good from the effect.
I happen to be married to a theoretical physicist. It’s helped me temper a lot of my far-out ideas but it’s also opened his mind to the unknown. Scientists have a real drive to understand everything and don’t like the unknown – they believe everything is knowable – so their science is their religion. He can’t explain why the energy work is effective and in fact, doesn’t call what I do energy work to keep it in line with his own beliefs. He says that science just hasn’t discovered how it works – yet. I have healthy debates with him, about how that won’t ever happen. It’s too big of a leap, but he disagrees. =)
You say there are only 2 types of medicine, medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. It betrays your own black/white thinking. Just wondering how you can believe that medicine is such an exact science? Two people can take the same medicine and it react completely differently in them – some causing serious side effects that require more and more different types of medicine. Medicine is not an exact science – it’s still a bunch of human guinea pigs used to see if something works. In fact, just today on MSNBC’s website, there was an article, “Antidepressants no help in milder cases
Study: Meds no better than placebos for all but most severely depressed.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34712755/ns/health-mental_health (and no, I didn’t vet the article)
Love. Does it exist or is it just a hormone that makes us feel love; oxytocin. When a mother cuddles her child, not all children feel love. Oxytocin levels in adopted children don’t change when the adoptive parent tries to bond. What is love? Where does it come from? Are we just a bunch of cells that function independent of our thought system? Why isolate our thought system from the physical? Is our thought system merely all accumulated knowledge contained in the brain cells? Lots more questions than anyone can answer. Might as well ask what is the meaning of life.
I’m no part of any religion, nor do I want any part of any religion. But I do have experiences of something that seems benevolent, that works through me but isn’t “mine.” Can I convince you or anyone that I’ve experienced it? I don’t need to, nor do I care to. It’s my experience, that’s all I know and if I wanted to prove it, then it would be a way to try to start a new belief system. You want to create belief systems – call it science or religion, it won’t get you what you strive to understand. If you get there the way I did, then we’ll all experience it. That just simply doesn’t work. No path nor belief system can get us “there,” nor help us “achieve” something.
What we already are and already possess is not something learned, it’s simply who one is (intrinsic). Science is always striving to know the unknowable, and in that is sometimes wonderful understanding. But science is and always will be leaping to understand what’s always been there without their understanding. Does something simply exist, or does it only exist if we understand it or can measure it? A tree was there long before we understood molecules and chlorophyll – and yet we still don’t know which came first, the chicken or the egg.
You’ve stated that energy work is nothing more than a placebo effect. If you’re so self convinced, then why are you bothering to have this discussion? A person whose mind is closed isn’t going to consider anything others say, they will always discredit everything that isn’t aligned with what you’re after. This is a completely unscientific approach, even though you claim to be objective. So, for what possible purpose do you do this other than to give yourself validation? You must be feeling very unsure of yourself, especially in your own profession. You already have an article written in your mind, which means unless something comes along to really smack you between the eyes (I guarantee that’s not gonna happen), you’re going to write your conclusions. This is a meaningless dialog in other words.
Whether you flash around years of titles and education, it makes you no different than the average Joe Blow. Like I said, just teaching someone to paint doesn’t make them a good nor famous painter.
But, back to the placebo effect. If energy work gives a placebo effect, then that would prove the intention of one’s own belief played a part. That’s pretty powerful healing energy that’s demonstrable in a huge number of cases. =) More time should be spent on why the placebo affect occurs. Ultimately, medicine isn’t the answer, only the power of our thoughts.
Though I don’t call myself an energy worker, healer, or any other term you’d give, it doesn’t require training nor belief to affect someone energetically. Yes, there is a factor of picking up cues from a client – but I’m usually not looking at facial expressions (in fact my eyes are often closed most of a session). There is heat sensitivity but also an intuitive factor – maybe it’s the way people carry themselves that I know just where a spot is at. I could dissect the whole process, and that interests me to some degree if I wanted to try to teach what I do. But overall, it doesn’t matter to me. If it helps the person, that’s all that matters. I have no need to scientifically validate my profession.
Personally, I would never be interested in receiving massage therapy from someone who is a “science based massage therapist.” It reminds me of the 1940’s and 50’s when doctors and psychologists advocated scientific child rearing: bottle feeding on a schedule, making children cry it out in their cribs to teach them who’s boss, children shouldn’t be spoiled by picking them up, spanking as a form of discipline. Forget it. That messed up generations of people. Good ol’ psychologists. Nevertheless, I’d still be interested in being part of a control group that measured results.
Energy is often compared to love, and you say energy that we describe doesn’t exist or is completely unmeasurable. So, does love exist? If it does, can you prove it and is it measurable?
You said, “I can understand how various types of connection could facilitate treatment, but why would the hypothesized form of healing disappear entirely in the absence of 'connection'? And we don't even know what we mean when we say 'connection.’” Are you serious? You contradict yourself in the same sentence, then say you don’t even know what’s meant by connection. What you’re suggesting is another rhesus monkey experiment, putting a bottle of milk on wires that look like a mother. Come on. Will you really go to any length of ridiculousness to attempt to prove your stance?
Maybe this experiment is best put in the hands of someone who doesn’t have a belief nor disbelief, but open to whatever results come. Because surely, you aren’t objective nor open minded. And by the way, most scientists are not open minded. They are all skeptical by nature unless you can prove something tangible.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
I found this quote from Albert Einstein the other day and I'm spreading it around on several of these discussions:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
-
-
Wow - lots of stuff here, including some lengthy posts directed to me. I'll try to respond to them, but I'll have to wait until at least tonight. Mr. Objectivity needs to spend some time in the lab this afternoon.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Mr. Objectivity might be squirrelist.
We've suspected this for a long time in the squirrel world.
Julianna Holden Mohler said:To be scientifically accurate, squirrels are not nuts. They eat nuts. Big difference there, Mr. Objectivity. =)
Christopher A. Moyer said:Vlad said:Do Squirrels have QI? Course we do! We've got more qi than humans. You humans are virtually qi-less compared to us!
Squirrels have many fine qualities.
They're also nuts. :)
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
