massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Energy Work
Fascinating work here. Definitely needs to be more research work done.
Views: 295
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Noel Norwick on
-
Christopher / Marilyn: Re energy and Science: You might enjoy reading the following webpages:
PiezoElectric PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2771333/?report=abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828812/?report=abstract
Electrostatic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1861768/?report=abstract
Electromagnetic
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790121/?report=abstract
Christopher A. Moyer said:Hi Marilyn.
It is customary in science to doubt the existence of anything that isn't yet proven. That's been a very useful way to work on many problems, and so we continue to use it.
But you raise an interesting possibility - that doesn't have to be the only way to do things, and it could possibly cause one to 'miss' things that actually exist. Generally, scientists have seen that type of error - a miss - as less egregious than the other type of error, a 'false hit.'
But you're right that it's not impossible to approach something with the assumption that it does exist. Note, however, that this will lead to an increased probability of 'false hit' type of errors.
The problem with assuming that energy work exists is that there are too many other well-understood mechanisms to explain the observed effects.
As for intuition, it is in some cases an interesting phenomenon and worthy of study. Science isn't antithetical to intuition.
-CM
Marilyn St.John said:Well, so much for allowing intuition factor into what we do as massage therapists and energy workers! There are so many professionals in music, health care, and even alternative energy solutions, who are going to be really disappointed to learn that the way they go about their work is thought of as childish ~ but results do come, so I'm sure many won't mind.
I realize the scientific community is partly committed to finding flaws, which is a good thing. Where I come from, however, it's best to look at what could be possible rather than to first assume something is not and then see if it can be made so. As a child, my father used to say, if someone is snooping around to find something bad, they'll always find it...and the same applies for looking for something good. It's not a terribly scientific approach but I have found its truth to be repeatable.
Assumptions have a pesky way of screwing people up, across the board. So why would anybody enter into any endeavor with that intention? There are people who are studying the power of intention from a scientific perspective. I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on their work since it can weigh so heavily into what we do as bodyworkers. A few such as Schwartz, McTaggert, Hunt, Hawkins-- all scientists, some of whom were once skeptical--come to mind. -
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Marilyn, if it works for you... keep doing it. If your intuition works... it doesn't need explained. If researchers can't explain it to their liking... ignore them. Do what you know works... research will catch up (or not)! We have permission from the state to practice, as we will... we don't need it from anyone else. Good luck and ... trust your intuition, you have the experience!
Christopher A. Moyer said:Hi Marilyn.
It is customary in science to doubt the existence of anything that isn't yet proven. That's been a very useful way to work on many problems, and so we continue to use it.
But you raise an interesting possibility - that doesn't have to be the only way to do things, and it could possibly cause one to 'miss' things that actually exist. Generally, scientists have seen that type of error - a miss - as less egregious than the other type of error, a 'false hit.'
But you're right that it's not impossible to approach something with the assumption that it does exist. Note, however, that this will lead to an increased probability of 'false hit' type of errors.
The problem with assuming that energy work exists is that there are too many other well-understood mechanisms to explain the observed effects.
As for intuition, it is in some cases an interesting phenomenon and worthy of study. Science isn't antithetical to intuition.
-CM
Marilyn St.John said:Well, so much for allowing intuition factor into what we do as massage therapists and energy workers! There are so many professionals in music, health care, and even alternative energy solutions, who are going to be really disappointed to learn that the way they go about their work is thought of as childish ~ but results do come, so I'm sure many won't mind.
I realize the scientific community is partly committed to finding flaws, which is a good thing. Where I come from, however, it's best to look at what could be possible rather than to first assume something is not and then see if it can be made so. As a child, my father used to say, if someone is snooping around to find something bad, they'll always find it...and the same applies for looking for something good. It's not a terribly scientific approach but I have found its truth to be repeatable.
Assumptions have a pesky way of screwing people up, across the board. So why would anybody enter into any endeavor with that intention? There are people who are studying the power of intention from a scientific perspective. I'm interested in anybody's thoughts on their work since it can weigh so heavily into what we do as bodyworkers. A few such as Schwartz, McTaggert, Hunt, Hawkins-- all scientists, some of whom were once skeptical--come to mind. -
-
Permalink Reply by Marilyn St.John on
-
Noel, thanks for the PubMed references. Interesting stuff. In my old life, I worked at a company for many years which was based on amorphous materials research--pretty heady physics for a layperson like me--but as a bodyworker, it gives me lots more dots to connect.
After re-reading the NYT article and subsequent response, I'm going down another thought-path with that, but with more research and focused personal obervation to do at this time...and yes, it may include energy work. ;) More later. -
-
-
Marilyn: For me, it's the story of the Tower of Babel repeated endlessly. The scientifically accepted existence of streaming electron flows and how the nervous system interprets sensory inputs can be described in many different ways, so why get hung up suggesting the use of terms such as Qi, Chi, Energy necessarily reflect an indefensible and primitive belief in magic. :~)
Marilyn St.John said:Noel, thanks for the PubMed references. Interesting stuff. In my old life, I worked at a company for many years which was based on amorphous materials research--pretty heady physics for a layperson like me--but as a bodyworker, it gives me lots more dots to connect.
After re-reading the NYT article and subsequent response, I'm going down another thought-path with that, but with more research and focused personal obervation to do at this time...and yes, it may include energy work. ;) More later. -
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
But Noel, the folks who are claiming "energy work" are never, in any case that I have ever seen, talking about the verifiable forms of energy transfer that we know take place in the body (e.g., electrochemical signaling in the nervous system). They are always invoking "elan vital", to use just one of the many terms for the supposed life force that differentiates living matter from nonliving matter.
The abstracts from pubmed that you posted are, as best I can tell from only looking at the abstracts, concerned with nothing unusual. None of them is making a claim for elan vital, or for Cartesian dualism.
Noel Norwick said:Marilyn: For me, it's the story of the Tower of Babel repeated endlessly. The scientifically accepted existence of streaming electron flows and how the nervous system interprets sensory inputs can be described in many different ways, so why get hung up suggesting the use of terms such as Qi, Chi, Energy necessarily reflect an indefensible and primitive belief in magic. :~)
Marilyn St.John said:Noel, thanks for the PubMed references. Interesting stuff. In my old life, I worked at a company for many years which was based on amorphous materials research--pretty heady physics for a layperson like me--but as a bodyworker, it gives me lots more dots to connect.
After re-reading the NYT article and subsequent response, I'm going down another thought-path with that, but with more research and focused personal obervation to do at this time...and yes, it may include energy work. ;) More later. -
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
