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 Julianna Holden Mohler on
-
I had given some thought to a comment Chris made to me awhile back, that if research results are something I agree with, I'm for it and that if research results are something I don't like, I'm against it. My first knee-jerk reaction was no, I just don't care. While that's partly true, it's not entirely true. It's not that I'm against any research that could prove energy doesn't exist. It's that I think the research is flawed. If it's flawed, then I don't care what they say - they could say my mother was a chimpanzee and I could just laugh.
It really comes down to a couple of things. In order for something not to exist, the very first premise in any research must be to accurately define what it is that doesn't exist. No one in this forum has defined "energy work," least of all the scientists involved. You can't build a case when the basis is non-existent. If we could all agree on what energy work was, then do research on that, then maybe you'd have my attention or interest, or at the very least, my respect.
But the second thing is, I don't think any tools built in time and space exist to quantifiably measure any results (but then again, you must know what you're measuring). The only thing that might come close would be the results on an organism, such as the rat experiments with Reiki that's been discussed. And even then, we can find flaws in the method.
Because so much in science can be relative, it's possible to discount just about any research results, no matter what branch or field. Countless times, I've heard field theory physicists mock string theory physicists' research. And yet their research is taken seriously by a lot of folks in their own field and other fields. Their research is especially embraced by the new age movement. Various ridiculous jumps in conclusions are made from it, and also from quantum mechanics.
Just the other day, a dear friend of mine posted on Facebook that she was a fan of "Quantum Awakening." I said, ok, it's time to pick on her. What is that? My husband said, is that like when your alarm clock rings, your eyes flutter open long enough to turn off the alarm, then you go back to sleep? heh
When you look at the work of David Bohm, PhD, quantum physicist, you find many in the field of physics love his work but refuse to admit it to anyone. Why? Because they can literally stunt their own careers by identifying with him. I imagine the same can be said for Schwartz. But I do believe there will come a day when science embraces both concepts. We just aren't there. Yet.
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on
-
Hi Julianna,
Actually we currently have ways of investigating modalities randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can't effectively evaluate on their own. It's called Whole Systems Research (WSR) and utilizes both RCT's AND qualitative methods of investigation. WSR emphasizes the client/therapist relationship, the client's culture and believe system, and is integrative in approach. I've posted several articles throughout this thread describing these methods. You can also find them posted on Vlad's new site:
http://www.mt-researchonline.com/rescom
I agree there must be a consensus of what energy work is among ourselves. From reading everyone's comments on this thread I'm thinking it may be safe to say energy could be described as the "vital force". What do you all think?
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Robin - thanks for the reference to the research site. And yes, people should definitely start reading up on WSR and the different types of research.
Julianna, saying that "research is flawed" is one thing, but surely the metholodogy should always be as good as it possibly can be and that means it must hold up to scrutiny. It's one thing when a massage therapist can find holes in methodology after reading a bit about how research is carried out. It's another thing if that research is scrutinized by other scientists. If an MT can find holes in the methodology, just how good is that research and how well regarded do you think that research is in the scientific community? Also, bear in mind that this is peer reviewed research.
"Because so much in science can be relative, it's possible to discount just about any research results, no matter what branch or field."
So research in all types of science can be discounted? I wonder how computer scientists would regard that statement.
The fact of the matter is that there's well run research and then there's rubbish. In my mind the way to tell the good from the rubbish is with levels of scrutiny. How do you know a good scientist from a not so good one? A good one will welcome high levels of scrutiny in their work and one of their main aims will be to eliminate their own personal bias (and others, which I won't go into) as much as possible. They'll do that in order to preserve the purity of scientific investigation. If that is missing, then we need to be aware of it.
-
-
Robin Byler Thomas said:Hi Julianna,
Actually we currently have ways of investigating modalities randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can't effectively evaluate on their own. It's called Whole Systems Research (WSR) and utilizes both RCT's AND qualitative methods of investigation. WSR emphasizes the client/therapist relationship, the client's culture and believe system, and is integrative in approach. I've posted several articles throughout this thread describing these methods. You can also find them posted on Vlad's new site:
http://www.mt-researchonline.com/rescom
I agree there must be a consensus of what energy work is among ourselves. From reading everyone's comments on this thread I'm thinking it may be safe to say energy could be described as the "vital force". What do you all think?
Thanks for redirecting me to those links.
How can we define one thing where there's no agreement with something else where there's no agreement (i.e. vital force)? There isn't a consensus on vital force in this discussion in other words. Energy isn't a force. I'm afraid defining the general term "energy work" is much harder than investigating a specific modality.
While most people can agree that there is no fundamental vital force, the concept may still be useful in a model description.
There are different ways to define energy. But I don't think a person can give someone else energy. All the energy one has is within one, and it's either flowing unimpeded or not. It's removing the impediments that cause it to flow correctly, or perhaps reorganize the flow.
You can mix black powder to make beautiful fireworks or a nasty explosion. But it's the same ingredients that haven't changed, only the way they're organized has changed.
When we dig deep enough into any subject, we discover there's a lot we don't know nor how to explain it, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.
-
-
Vlad said:
So research in all types of science can be discounted? I wonder how computer scientists would regard that statement.
Vlad, thanks for bearing with me. Of course the basis of what you say is right. I would have to take exception to peer reviews to a degree. Take a look at the pharmaceutical industry peer reviewed research for example.
(This is from my husband) Unfortunately if you apply the highest possible rigor, you often get nowhere. Let me just make 2 simple examples.
1) (in relation to computer science) Numerical algorithms in finite precision. Most mathematical proofs for convergence bounds assume an exact calculation. In some cases a rigorous finite precision bound can be proven to not exist. This includes some algorithms used commonly in all fields of science.
2) (as a physics example) There is no proof that a solution to the Navier Stokes equation even exists. Yet there is plenty of literature talking about it.
Disclaimer: Some definitions of science do not include mathematics to be a science. One could now argue that computer science is also not a science as it consists of a part being mathematics and a lot of engineering. I guess the only thing established is that programming is an art =)
Having said that I agree with all you said: We should strive for the highest rigor. Nevertheless we may use divide and conquer.
(Julianna here in plain English) My husband was able to articulate something I wasn't, so I invited him to word it for me. I hope that wasn't an intrusion.
-
-
Your original point was "it's possible to discount just about any research results, no matter what branch or field." You can go ahead and argue all you want that research in computer science is flawed and please go ahead and do it on the internet which was put together by a bunch of computer scientists (and Al Gore), I'm sure a lot of people will buy into that.
The thing about computer science is there's a much less chance of it being poisoned by pseudoscience, isn't there? If it was poisoned we'd all be sitting with shells of computers at our desks imagining we're communicating with other people. Oh, but then, you're also saying that computer science isn't really a science. OK, I didn't know that. Good to know.
I don't know what you mean by "exception to peer reviews". Peer reviews are there as a measure to keep the integrity of research intact. You also say "highest rigor" which you're all on for. I'm all on for that too and that includes the peer review. The problem is that it apparently doesn't happen with some journals that declare themselves as peer reviewed journals. If Joe Public can find holes in the methodology, then how good was the peer review? Not very good, obviously. If there are low standards of reviews, then we need to be aware of it.
-
-
That's the beauty of whole systems research (WSR); it attempts to describe the clients experience of the session. Isn't that what matters most? WSR recognizes practitioners use many different modalities (including energy work) in their treatment approaches and attempts to investigate it using inclusionary methods instead of only reductionist methods.
Julianna Holden Mohler said:Robin Byler Thomas said:Hi Julianna,
Actually we currently have ways of investigating modalities randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can't effectively evaluate on their own. It's called Whole Systems Research (WSR) and utilizes both RCT's AND qualitative methods of investigation. WSR emphasizes the client/therapist relationship, the client's culture and believe system, and is integrative in approach. I've posted several articles throughout this thread describing these methods. You can also find them posted on Vlad's new site:
http://www.mt-researchonline.com/rescom
I agree there must be a consensus of what energy work is among ourselves. From reading everyone's comments on this thread I'm thinking it may be safe to say energy could be described as the "vital force". What do you all think?
Thanks for redirecting me to those links.
How can we define one thing where there's no agreement with something else where there's no agreement (i.e. vital force)? There isn't a consensus on vital force in this discussion in other words. Energy isn't a force. I'm afraid defining the general term "energy work" is much harder than investigating a specific modality.
While most people can agree that there is no fundamental vital force, the concept may still be useful in a model description.
There are different ways to define energy. But I don't think a person can give someone else energy. All the energy one has is within one, and it's either flowing unimpeded or not. It's removing the impediments that cause it to flow correctly, or perhaps reorganize the flow.
You can mix black powder to make beautiful fireworks or a nasty explosion. But it's the same ingredients that haven't changed, only the way they're organized has changed.
When we dig deep enough into any subject, we discover there's a lot we don't know nor how to explain it, but that doesn't mean there isn't an explanation.
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Robin,
Thank you again for your continued support of whole systems research.
That's the beauty of whole systems research (WSR); it attempts to describe the clients experience of the session. Isn't that what matters most? WSR recognizes practitioners use many different modalities (including energy work) in their treatment approaches and attempts to investigate it using inclusionary methods instead of only reductionist methods.
As you know, I advocate that in absence of a specific definition of the energy we are attempting to measure, we are left with measuring the actual differences in results that occur with or without the inclusion of whatever energy work we wish to evaluate.
-
Permalink Reply by Cindy engel on
-
Hi, it very much depends on what you are skeptical about.
There are plenty of flaky therapists out there who call their work energy work when they don't actually have a working conceptual model of what they are doing but, to be honest, neither do those of you who just work on the physical level.
Everything that exists as a physical particle ALSO exists as a field of energy (wave-particle duality, physics). So all aspects of the body also have fields (energy). This is how modern off-body biosensors can detect how our internal physiology is doing--they read the information fields.
As everything is energy and energy is information, all bodywork is energy work, all bodywork is about information.
The interesting bit comes in exploring how a bodyworker can influence these energy fields of the client or whether they (the fields) simply reflect the internal state. In other words, does the relationship work both ways? Energy workers experience YES, medical science assumes NO.
I assume this is the area of your skepticism?
If so, the next stage to explore is how consciousness interacts with these fields. I am happy to discuss this with you drawing on my experience as a Qigong therapist and shiatsu practitioner...do let me know if this is the area of interest.
Best wishes
Cindy.
-
Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on
-
This is a very old thread. I don't even see any of the participants of this thread in here anymore? Anyway. This is my opinion on the subject. I know that at a quantum level, everything is engergy and connected. It's scientific fact. But things on the quantum level don't always translate on a practical level ( un-quantum level ). Now there is always the placebo effect which is real. I don't know what that is. 20% or something? Maybe if both the therapist as well as the client believes in energy work, it works. But for all practical purposes, it doesn't.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary W Addis, LMT on
-
sure. I too am skeptical about the benefits of energy work, especially of reflexology, which imo is based on nonsense.
-
-
Placebo real. Energywork not? Interesting. How do you think 'belief' influences the body? If you can answer that you can heal the world as you will have explained how consciousness and matter interact.
Placebo is not a sign of weakness in a modality. That is just pharmaceutical company propaganda. Placebo is another word for activation of self healing and is what ALL modalities should be looking to enhance and enable.
I am skeptical about all sorts of bodywork both physical and energetic. Many therapists have no idea what their conceptual framework is (including massage therapists).
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
