Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 22, 2009 at 9:46am

A couple of comments. From a theoretical physics perspective, postulation of an unknown form of energy is extremely problematic. Such concepts are not stand-alone, but instead have far-ranging ripples of interconnection. Fields of energy are essentially potential fields and thus related to forces. The basic forces, in turn, are considered to have carrier particles that "implement" them. Thus one ends up having to consider the ripples of any such postulation and what consistency they would have with a large and extensive body of observations as well as with existing theory. This background strata of physical understanding does provide an a priori level of knowledge before observations related to contradictory claims are made.

Second, in relation to the JAMA article on TT, the result, in my belief, should not be considered on the basis of logical proof but of Bayesian expectations. Before the observations, we have some a priori probability for expecting that a TT practitioner is detecting some unknown type of energy field. We perform a series of observations. Those observations add to our knowledge (combine with apriori knowledge) and yield an a posteriori likelihood of the expectation that such detection is occurring. What Chris is, in effect saying, is that based on both the observations and our current understanding of the nature of the universe, that expectation of detection is currently quite small, a conclusions that I have to agree with.

One also would not expect the the result of the application of "energy work" would be random, even if that work, in itself, does nothing. The powers of imagery, belief, and attention from another human being are profound. The cardiologist, Bernard Lown, discusses his own experiences on this in his book The Lost Art of Healing.

A sensation of something flowing through one, without other knowledge of "the something" is normally referred to as "paresthesia".

I am sure, as Mike keeps reminding us, that a BOK document can be cranked out in the planned time frame. The long term success or failure of this effort will depend on the ultimate goals, the target audience of the BOK and their reception of it, and consistency with other studies and ontologies.Time will tell, on those aspects. Both health care social systems and the human body itself are complex, a topic considered Brenda Zimmerman et al in Edgeware -- lessons from complexity science for health care leaders.

Comment by rudy m smith on October 22, 2009 at 8:44am

everyone thought the world was flat... for a long time. Then one day... Just because people think a believe is true and behave like a believe is true does not make it true.

Comment by Bert Davich on October 22, 2009 at 8:16am

Hi Gerry,
I agree with you that how it (energy work) should be treated in the MTBOK is the issue at hand. If you go bact to the beginning of the discussion I believe I was the first to take issue with the first draft wording on energy work and had concerns about the BOK being written for the benefit of special interest groups.

I have since accepted that it is going to happen so we might as well try to influence it for the benefit of the therapist's.

My exchanges regarding the study reflect the problem of including energy work in the BOK. We are going to be assailed by many claiming to be objective scientist that really have an agenda of their own and will attempt to discredit anything they do not believe in and use invalid studies to support their position. In addition to the 6th grader who conducted the study, it was also participated in by "quackwatch". I have listened to quackwatch and heard the program use studies to show the ineffectiveness of echinacea by using studies that did not include more recent studies done in Germany that had different results. I call it the "pick & choose method"

With that in mind, if it is to be in this BOK, we should all work to have the wording such that it does not easily lend itself to assaults from other professions.

Comment by Gerry Bunnell on October 22, 2009 at 5:35am

I feel the discussion on the scientific validity of energy work in this forum is pointless. There are enough people who practice it, and enough people who believe in its effectiveness to warrent it a place on the MTBOK. How it should be treated in the MTBOK is the issue at hand I think, NOT whether it should be included at all due to many in the scientific community who insist it is not a valid therapy.

Peace

Comment by Stephen Jeffrey on October 22, 2009 at 3:04am

Chris in 1999 I was just as as skeptical about energy work as you, maybe even more so! what? grown adults waving thier arms around, playing as if they can really feel something happening?.
Yet 10 yrs on my eyes have been truely opened. Maybe one day yours will too. I hope so.
Regards steve

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 21, 2009 at 11:28pm

Like I've said from the beginning, therapists are doing their jobs. Research is behind, not us. And we are not stopping or even slowing down, our push forward. Try and catch up.

Comment by Bert Davich on October 21, 2009 at 10:51pm

Christopher,
Your statement:
"I don't agree with you that this is clearly a false dilemma. I actually do think that their inability to pass that test is strong evidence that their claims are groundless. I said this earlier" does not in any way address the false dilemma posed by the conclusion. If you cannot address the "false dilemma" argument, you are left with your opinion. "I don't agree" and "actually do think" evade the question. (another form of fallacious logic)

Ask one of the professors of logic at your University and I think they will agree.
"This strikes me as condescending. I hope I'm wrong about that"
That is not condescending, It is a simple statement regarding your understanding of logical (and fallacious) argument which suggests a means of independent verification.

"And I think you're getting unnecessarily hung up on the authors' conclusion. the data are more interesting. You are free to reach other conclusions, as you have"
Christopher, I have not stated my opinion of the conclusions. I will state it now. It is inconclusive. My objection from the outset has been the fact that fallacious logic was used to reach the conclusion and the test method was biased, therefore ANY conclusion would be invalid. I told you from the beginning that I know virtually nothing about TT.

"I'm always careful to back my arguments with evidence. Rest assured I will do this in whatever form of communication I offer to the MTBOK."

If you call the "study" we have been discussing that uses fallacious logic to reach conclusions valid evidence then your input is purely subjective. And I put the word "study" in quotes because it is biased and uses fallacious logic to arrive at what appears to be a predetermined conclusion.

You supported the 6th grader conducting the study who knows nothing about what she is "studying". If a 6th grader did a study of a new drug you were prescribed would you accept that or would you prefer that the study was conducted by credible biochemists?

I say again, speak to a professor of logic at your University. I am done discussing this issue.

Regarding your last paragraph,
My words:
Again, these are subjective observations and I have yet to see a valid way to test them.
Your words:
"It's not only possible, it's not even that difficult...."
OK if it is not even that difficult, then explain how you would do this. Or you can evade the question again.
Furthermore, I feel no obligation to relay to you my specific subjective experiences for your research. The rest of the paragraph is so full of assumptions it is impossible to discuss it without writing a treatise of information you can use for your research purposes which from your support of the conclusions of the "study" appear likely to be subjected to fallacious logic in your conclusions.

At this moment, you appear to me to be playing psychological games with the members of this discussion for your own (research) purposes. You play the part of a scientist, but ignore logic when it does not support your beliefs. But that gets members to open themselves up to you which is what you appear to want.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 21, 2009 at 8:15pm

Stephen,

He's a scientist, not a therapist. How can he understand? He hasn't felt these things and he believes science is the ONLY answer. He will never understand, as he sees this as (A + B = the same answer every time! or it's not understandable and has to be repeatable, with the same result every time) This is what they know.

Person is unwell ----> perform energy modality ----> person is better

means something else, other than the energy modality, did the work and therefore, although it happens hundreds of thousands of times everyday all over the world, it is baseless in science.

So be it. Let them have their way and we will continue to help people. They can argue about the BOK and it will do them no good. This is happening and they are lost about how. Until they do their studies, they won't know the answers to their own questions. We will persevere and the BOK will show the way!!!

Comment by Keith Eric Grant on October 21, 2009 at 8:06pm

To expand on my earlier comment about other studies, and particularly out of Canada, I'll note that the September 2009 issue of IJTMB has the article The Integrated Taxonomy of Health Care: Classifying Both Complement... by Antony Porcino and Colleen MacDougall.While this is a high-level clustering, it is a clustering into largely independent practices nonetheless. It also is worth noting that this is a classification of practices, not an attempt to identify the knowledge basis for each classification. The paper, in turn, notes the earlier work of Tataryn (2002).

It's pretty clear that any knowledge structuring for massage will not be unique and will be compared with and commented on with reference to other such works, particularly with the growth of a peer-reviewed literature in this area.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 21, 2009 at 6:24pm

Keep watching for Draft #2 right after the New Year!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page