Skeptical about Energy Work

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on December 16, 2009 at 8:18pm

Hi Christopher,

"Absolutely. And why stop there? While we're at it, let's require massage therapists to have core courses in astrology, water dowsing, tarot reading, palmistry, homeopathy, past life regression, astral projection, numerology, ghostbusting, mindreading, and Rorschach testing."

Are you talking about getting an article published based on our discussions around energy work? The terms exploitation and false representation comes to mind after all the fun you've made of what we take seriously in our profession.

Any thoughts you'd like to share with us MT's as a whole after you write this paper and before being published would be appreciated.

Robin


Christopher A. Moyer said:

Everyone -

This is exciting and interesting. When I first posted this as a new discussion, I was a little worried that there might be no interest in it, but that's clearly not the case. The opposite appears to be true, so much so that I feel I may not be able to keep up with all the replies!

You've all given me some good things to think about, and have helped me to organize my thinking on how I might be able to offer a different perspective on what some folks in the massage therapy profession think of as "energetic" phenomena. I think I may chat with Kim about making this into an article or editorial of some kind. More to come...

-CM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 16, 2009 at 8:54pm

Hi Robin.

A lot of folks might not realize that what you quoted there is from something going on at another site. You should provide the context.

Here is the link:

http://mtevidence.ning.com/forum/topics/energywork-in-core-curricul...

Yes, I am being sarcastic and irreverent in that discussion. I find those approaches to be useful from time to time when it comes to raising consciousness around certain topics, especially when conversing with people who know me quite well, which the active participants on that other site mostly do. I do not engage in ad hominem attacks.

Obviously, my approach tends to be different in a more formal published piece. For example, in a fairly recent article that I published with Trish Dryden and Stacey Shipwright, we stated that the Massage Therapy Foundation's Research Agenda Workgroup Report included "the dubious recommendation that such studies should include exploration of so-called “subtle energy”)" (p. 17, http://www.ijtmb.org/index.php/ijtmb/article/view/51/64 ). In addition, note that the report was authored by my colleague Janet Kahn, whom I respect and with whom I consider myself to be friends. I'm prepared to makes such criticisms, and to receive them. Again, I do not engage in ad hominen attacks - as long as I'm talking about the material, I feel I am justified to be critical. I accept that not everyone may like my style.

And yes, I am thinking about addressing some of the topics in this thread in an upcoming editorial - most specifically, how I might be able to craft an article that provides an educational approach to how most scientists might understand energy work and the associated phenomena that therapists and recipients sometimes report. I may work with a co-author; it is only in the planning stages right now. But yes, this present discussion has been instrumental in getting me to think about it seriously. Based on some of the advice I received earlier in this thread, I believe the task is better accomplished in a more formal publication, than it is for me to attempt to present it here in blog form. If and when completed, I will post the link, of course.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on December 16, 2009 at 10:51pm

For anyone wanting to gain more understanding of research and research literacy, you could read Ruth Werners article in the latest Massage Today mag in which she addresses research today and gives a few good links that should be bookmarked. (Oh, and if you're lurking, Ruth, your articles in Massage Today will be missed).

(Also, If anyone on the MTF is lurking, the online course link for research literacy on the links page of the MTF site is broken).

Then there's this good intro article on research literacy and this one too. If you go to the MTJ column on research literacy, you'll find more articles by the same authors. They're good.

Here's an anatomy of a research article

A good book to get started by one of the authors of the articles is:
Making Sense of Research by Martha Brown Menard

If you want to get into more of the guts of research methodology, then:
Research Methods for Massage and Holistic Therapies by Glenn Hymel is a more expensive, but more in depth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 17, 2009 at 9:28am

Chris, I'm a little skeptical of your ability to start seeing the light of what you should be diong on here = educating us re research. When so much of what you have done (dispite lisa's attempts to warn you ) has been no more than physcology exercise to titalate your ego.

That's quite an accusation.

Chris which is it? are you open to change your mind or are you sure you " never will " re energy work.

I've attempted to explain my own position on this as best I can, and now more than once. The answer is "both." Haven't you even been sure of something, but eventually realized you were wrong? It's possible.

To me, the tenets of energy work are like claims of perpetual motion. There are scores of people who claim to have built perpetual motion machines, but I do not believe them even though I have not inspected their work. Why do I doubt so confidently? Because, based on my knowledge of physical sciences, I know how unlikely such a machine is. You could fairly say that I am certain no such machine could ever exist.

I also know some principles of human behavior that help me to think of reasons why a person could honestly believe they have discovered perpetual motion, even when they haven't. A non-technical reason is that we like to believe in ourselves and our work, and so the creator of such a machine is apt to overlook its shortcomings, at least for a time.

Now, if ever someone actually did create a perpetual motion machine, and it was verified and replicated and convincingly demonstrated to overturn our understanding of thermodynamics, I (and everyone else) would have no choice but to change my mind about my former knowledge of those principles. I don't think this will happen (I'm essentially certain that it can't), but if it ever does, I want to see the evidence.

Contrary to some stereotypes, scientists are extremely open-minded. All you have to do to convince them of something is show them proof!

If its the latter then maybe you should stay on the other site.

I'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to point out that this is a thread that I started to discuss skepticism about energy work. You don't have to read it if you don't want to. Some folks have expressed interest in it, both here and to me privately, so for the time being I think I will proceed. As for my ability or qualities as an educator/researcher/scientist or whatever, ultimately that's for you to decide. I'll just do the best I can.

I'll also continue to accept that some folks won't like my style. Those folks are free to demand a refund.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on December 17, 2009 at 11:24am

Hello RP & welcome with your great questions.I have one comment about your frustration with energy workers who believe they could affect you without your participation. I have considered one aspect of this that I have not heard discussed, namely the effect the thoughts,intent and rituals of energy work has on the therapist. One of the things I have learned to appreciate more and more (this blog has actually contributed to my appreciation) is how Reiki, as I was taught enhanced my ability to focus on and connect with the client. That makes for a better therapist regardless of undefined energy. Increased focus and connection does have an effect on a client regardless of their participation level, although It should be recognized that increased client participation would enhance focus and connection even more.

RP in CO said:

I appreciate your wish to spark a discussion, which is, I believe, what this entire site is about...

I come from a background based in science and research. However, I have learned over the years that personal healing (whether physical or mental health) includes an element that is beyond the control of the "healer", which stymies doctors all time. I am skeptical of those who claim to know exactly what that is and how it all comes together (and those I consider true therapists - energy or not - do not claim this), but I recognize that more exists than I can manipulate and control. I have had many experiences with "energy workers" that were very frustrating, but more because of those individuals' beliefs that they could affect me without my participation, rather than the fact that they were working with some undefined energy. However, that attitude offends me whether they come from the "medical massage" perspective, the "energy work" perspective or any other perspective. I am curious, Christopher, have you ever received work from an energy worker? If so, what type of work did they do? Do you include all forms in your skepticism, or is it certain ones? What exactly is it that you are skeptical about, that there is something more to us than our physical structures, or that we can manipulate it, or that it makes a difference in healing, or something else?

I think research is a powerful way for us to explore our curiosity, but that it is a mistake to think that it stands alone. Even the hardest sciences have constantly shifting - sometimes mutually exclusive - theories being debated. After all, the research results are only as good as the research questions asked and the research designs conceived. Coming from a place of not knowing the answers in the first place, those research questions and designs are inherently lacking (not for satisfying our curiosity or for gaining knowledge but for creating ultimate definitions). If we support our entire profession on research alone we will exclude aspects that are effective and powerful but about which we don't even know how to ask the appropriate questions yet. Western medicine is based solely in research results, yet that research is constantly sending us different, sometimes conflicting, messages because of either the questions we ask or the way we interpret the results.

I look forward to discussing more after finding out exactly what the skepticism is about...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marilyn St.John on December 17, 2009 at 1:48pm

I really liked Emmanuel's comments, especially the reference to atomic particles. It has been my feeling for years that somehow particle physics should be looked at through this lens. The only resource I can think of right now are the folks at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Accelerator lab -- but my atom smasher acquaintances haven't looked from a "healing" perspective, at least nothing is published that I can find. If anybody has seen a physics offering, I'd love to know about it.

.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on December 17, 2009 at 2:02pm

Hi Christopher,

Yes, you were right, I should have included the link, for the proper context, when cutting and pasting your statement on this discussion thread; glad you included it.

I read your article reporting the results of the workshop, right after it was published, and was really pleased with the way the group conducted the process. I believe I've read most of your journal articles; haven't read the ped review yet. They are well written, easy to read, and helpful to our industry, and the public, in an area you have gained much knowledge; MT research. It doesn't appear you have as much background on the other domains of bodywork.

You definitely have the academic advantage in an area many MT's are interested; research. There is a gap in research literacy among MT's. We know it and are grateful for education and support; when we are not busy defending our profession.

I would encourage you to learn more before you attempt to write about energy work.

Robin


Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Robin.

A lot of folks might not realize that what you quoted there is from something going on at another site. You should provide the context.

Here is the link:

http://mtevidence.ning.com/forum/topics/energywork-in-core-curricul...

Yes, I am being sarcastic and irreverent in that discussion. I find those approaches to be useful from time to time when it comes to raising consciousness around certain topics, especially when conversing with people who know me quite well, which the active participants on that other site mostly do. I do not engage in ad hominem attacks.

Obviously, my approach tends to be different in a more formal published piece. For example, in a fairly recent article that I published with Trish Dryden and Stacey Shipwright, we stated that the Massage Therapy Foundation's Research Agenda Workgroup Report included "the dubious recommendation that such studies should include exploration of so-called “subtle energy”)" (p. 17, http://www.ijtmb.org/index.php/ijtmb/article/view/51/64 ). In addition, note that the report was authored by my colleague Janet Kahn, whom I respect and with whom I consider myself to be friends. I'm prepared to makes such criticisms, and to receive them. Again, I do not engage in ad hominen attacks - as long as I'm talking about the material, I feel I am justified to be critical. I accept that not everyone may like my style.

And yes, I am thinking about addressing some of the topics in this thread in an upcoming editorial - most specifically, how I might be able to craft an article that provides an educational approach to how most scientists might understand energy work and the associated phenomena that therapists and recipients sometimes report. I may work with a co-author; it is only in the planning stages right now. But yes, this present discussion has been instrumental in getting me to think about it seriously. Based on some of the advice I received earlier in this thread, I believe the task is better accomplished in a more formal publication, than it is for me to attempt to present it here in blog form. If and when completed, I will post the link, of course.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 17, 2009 at 7:18pm

Hi RP

I am curious, Christopher, have you ever received work from an energy worker? If so, what type of work did they do?

Yes. Very briefly, as I think I described this in detail in another recent thread, I received weekly massage for an extended period from a person trained in Touch for Health. I went to this person because I thought she was a very good massage therapist, and I didn't even know the tenets of TfH until later, though I was aware of the fact that TfH must have had its own idiosyncratic theories because I noticed the had anatomical charts with unfamiliar names on it (e.g., triple warmer). At the end of her sessions she would do some very gentle strokes on the head and face, which I found to be very, very relaxing; I never asked her at the time, but I wonder now if she believed she was doing energy work by means of those strokes.

I also had a session from a therapist who informed me that she would conclude by performing a few minutes of reiki. I endured it because I didn't want to say anything, but I was irritated because I'd have preferred to have massage during those two or three minutes! At the same time I understood that she meant well and was 'giving' me something to be nice and generous; in other words, I saw it as a nice gesture.

Do you include all forms in your skepticism, or is it certain ones?

I am skeptical of all forms of energy work that I have encountered.

What exactly is it that you are skeptical about, that there is something more to us than our physical structures, or that we can manipulate it, or that it makes a difference in healing, or something else?

This question asks a lot and could lead to a very long answer. For example, the idea that 'there is more to us than our physical structures' could be interpreted in more than one way. I'll skip that for now (but feel free to ask me a more specific follow up and I'll try to address it) and simply say that my extreme skepticism of energy work comes from 1) a familiarity with physics that leads me to see the tenets of energy work as astronomically remote, combined with 2) a knowledge of several well-understood psychological phenomena that could explain the experiences energy workers and some of their recipients report.

I realize that I have not spelled either 1 or 2 out very well at all in this answer or previous ones. I'm not trying to be coy; rather, I have begun to realize that it will be better to explain these more fully in a publication. I am thinking seriously about writing such a paper and am even talking with a colleague about writing it jointly; when completed, I/we will post it here, of course. This discussion has been instrumental in motivating me/us to consider this, and has helped us recognize the need for it.

I think research is a powerful way for us to explore our curiosity, but that it is a mistake to think that it stands alone. Even the hardest sciences have constantly shifting - sometimes mutually exclusive - theories being debated.

But there are also theories that no one is debating, because they are very well settled. No one is debating the laws of thermodynamics, for example; every person with a working knowledge of physics agrees that they are so well demonstrated and understood that they can be relied on to describe nature. If the tenets of energy work defy what we know about thermodynamics... Let's just say I know which side I'm betting on.

After all, the research results are only as good as the research questions asked and the research designs conceived. Coming from a place of not knowing the answers in the first place, those research questions and designs are inherently lacking (not for satisfying our curiosity or for gaining knowledge but for creating ultimate definitions). If we support our entire profession on research alone we will exclude aspects that are effective and powerful but about which we don't even know how to ask the appropriate questions yet. Western medicine is based solely in research results,

That's not actually true. There is much in modern medicine that is done out of tradition. In addition, I find the Western/Eastern distinction to be not very useful, and even a kind of false dichotomy. I also find the CAM label to be pretty useless.

There are really only two kinds of medicine. There is medicine that works, and medicine that doesn't. (I wish I could say I made that up, but I didn't.)

yet that research is constantly sending us different, sometimes conflicting, messages because of either the questions we ask or the way we interpret the results.

To restate the point about theories - yes, sure, there is active debate in science. But the debate is generally taking place at the edges of our knowledge, which are supported by findings on which science now agrees. No one is debating phlogiston theory today, or if they are, they simply don't know what they are talking about, because the associated phenomena are now much better understood. Some of the debates concerning energy work are, in my scientific opinion, like a modern-day debate about phlogiston theory.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 17, 2009 at 7:26pm

I read your article reporting the results of the workshop, right after it was published, and was really pleased with the way the group conducted the process. I believe I've read most of your journal articles; haven't read the ped review yet. They are well written, easy to read, and helpful to our industry, and the public, in an area you have gained much knowledge; MT research.

Robin - thank you very much for these kind words. They are much appreciated.

It doesn't appear you have as much background on the other domains of bodywork.

You may be right. I'll add to that - there is also plenty that I don't know about massage therapy!

I would encourage you to learn more before you attempt to write about energy work.

I have to admit it's tempting to try and list my qualifications for the task! I'm going to refrain, though.

Is there any specific reading material that you would like to direct me to?

Time permitting, I expect to go forward with writing the article I have now alluded to several times. It will be in the form of an editorial or theory piece. If I/we get things wrong, the journal that I am considering as the outlet for it would definitely welcome well-written responses that highlight what I get wrong. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on December 17, 2009 at 9:18pm

Chris,
I have to agree with Robin on a number of points.
First off, you write well. The directions and dilemmas doc and the other work I've read of yours is great reading - really educational.

As for writing about energy work
Remember when:
Stefanie said:
"Teaching a scientific approach doesn't require one to address energy work at all."
Well, I think Stefanie, me and the others were referring more to you teaching us about research - i.e. methodologies, challenges within it and groovy aspects of it etc..

It doesn't sound like Robin thinks it's a good idea for you to write about energy work and I have to admit that it makes me think that you're just digging at the same hole, only using a different angle.

I won't do it now (because I'm shattered - everyone and their dog wants a massage these days) but at the weekend I'm going start to put up questions on the forum here about research which I hope will help and inspire others to get interested in your work and in research in general. (I won't bail as Vlad - so it won't be lost!). I hope you will help out - I know you've helped me before and I appreciate it.
Cheers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on December 17, 2009 at 10:02pm

I meant to learn more from the people contributing to this thread, and to allow the dust to settle a bit first so your article would be well received. No need to list your qualifications Christopher; I know you're qualified and well able to write anything you desire at any time.



Christopher A. Moyer said:

I read your article reporting the results of the workshop, right after it was published, and was really pleased with the way the group conducted the process. I believe I've read most of your journal articles; haven't read the ped review yet. They are well written, easy to read, and helpful to our industry, and the public, in an area you have gained much knowledge; MT research.

Robin - thank you very much for these kind words. They are much appreciated.

It doesn't appear you have as much background on the other domains of bodywork.

You may be right. I'll add to that - there is also plenty that I don't know about massage therapy!

I would encourage you to learn more before you attempt to write about energy work.

I have to admit it's tempting to try and list my qualifications for the task! I'm going to refrain, though.

Is there any specific reading material that you would like to direct me to?

Time permitting, I expect to go forward with writing the article I have now alluded to several times. It will be in the form of an editorial or theory piece. If I/we get things wrong, the journal that I am considering as the outlet for it would definitely welcome well-written responses that highlight what I get wrong. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa on December 17, 2009 at 10:12pm

Vlad said:

The word "energy" is like the word "love."

I have to agree with the Squirrel on this point. i am severely lacking in both. :)

btw...thanks Bert. i prefer to keep a little humor in some of these epic threads. ;)

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 36
• Next ›
• Page