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: 3110
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Julianna Holden Mohler on
-
It's just interesting if it can be affirmed as more than in my head, but it really doesn't matter to me if it ever happens or not. You know, for years women who suffered PMS were told it was all in their head by...male doctors...who didn't think it was anything other than psychological. When it was confirmed it was biological, women were finally taken seriously. Unfortunately, women are usually at the brunt of not being taken seriously. You know, like the ones who were declared witches if they healed someone with herbs and were in turn burned, hung, or drowned.
Vlad said:Julianna:
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.
Why even look at the Japan studies if you don't need validation?
Is curiosity not a signal of some need for validation?
-
-
For the record, I never claimed it was relevant. I said it peaked my interest, and also that it was a lot of fluff. That's why I never pursued it.
But aside from that, the photons, no matter how miniscule, can be measured. Something that happens at the level of DNA, which we can't see with the naked eye, can have a massive impact.
Christopher A. Moyer said:On break while the tech folks update my other computer...
I have read this paper (I may have a copy of it on my computer). It is exactly as Keith describes. We're talking about a ridiculously small number of photons - like 20 or something like that, if memory serves.
Keith, tell us how many photons are hitting us every minute when we sit beneath a 100 W light bulb. :)
The Hiramatsu paper has no relevance to massage therapy in any way.
Keith Eric Grant said:Julianna Holden Mohler said:Here's the original article that interested me, so I wrote to Misuo Hiramatsu in Japan to send me the entire research paper.
The link from the website to the study didn't work. Finding the paper, however, in PubMed (15935689) indicates the it is among papers measuring oxidative skin stress via observing ultra-weak photon emissions from the chemical reactions. I also found another paper (18211608) with an abstract giving further background on what's being measured. Chemiluminescence is a pretty well-know phenomena, witness the light-sticks in use at Halloween.
-
-
Forgot to make this point, too. We shouldn't have to rely on science to be taken seriously. We live in an age in time where the head rules, not the heart. This is changing, though. Fortunately.
Julianna Holden Mohler said:It's just interesting if it can be affirmed as more than in my head, but it really doesn't matter to me if it ever happens or not. You know, for years women who suffered PMS were told it was all in their head by...male doctors...who didn't think it was anything other than psychological. When it was confirmed it was biological, women were finally taken seriously. Unfortunately, women are usually at the brunt of not being taken seriously. You know, like the ones who were declared witches if they healed someone with herbs and were in turn burned, hung, or drowned.
Vlad said:Julianna:
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.
Why even look at the Japan studies if you don't need validation?
Is curiosity not a signal of some need for validation?
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Julianna:
I'm not trying to be a pain in the virtual neck here, it's just that I find your perspective pretty dang interesting.
In your first post you said:
Personally, I would never be interested in receiving massage therapy from someone who is a “science based massage therapist.”
and then later:
I do think most of what's called "energy work" is hooey, imagined or wished for by many practitioners who want to feel "powerful."
I've literally walked out of workshops that were disgusting to me
You are skeptical of some energy work CE providers too and it sounds like you'd have a high level of discernment when choosing an energy worker to work on you.
So would you say your level of disinterest in seeing an evidenced based practitioner is more strong that your level of disgust for all the so-called-energy-workers-that-aren't-really? I know it's a weird question.
Do you believe that the therapists that never bought into the energy work (never been trained in it, never been interested in taking classes etc) are totally devoid of having any of the elements of energetic healing in their work? If we're all made of the same "stuff", could it not come into play anyway, but without their knowing? Or if you believe there is a forced blockage with them being evidenced based, why would that be the case - what's it based on?
-
-
Vlad said:Julianna:
I'm not trying to be a pain in the virtual neck here, it's just that I find your perspective pretty dang interesting.
In your first post you said:
Personally, I would never be interested in receiving massage therapy from someone who is a “science based massage therapist.”
and then later:
I do think most of what's called "energy work" is hooey, imagined or wished for by many practitioners who want to feel "powerful."
I've literally walked out of workshops that were disgusting to me
You are skeptical of some energy work CE providers too and it sounds like you'd have a high level of discernment when choosing an energy worker to work on you.
So would you say your level of disinterest in seeing an evidenced based practitioner is more strong that your level of disgust for all the so-called-energy-workers-that-aren't-really? I know it's a weird question.
Do you believe that the therapists that never bought into the energy work (never been trained in it, never been interested in taking classes etc) are totally devoid of having any of the elements of energetic healing in their work? If we're all made of the same "stuff", could it not come into play anyway, but without their knowing? Or if you believe there is a forced blockage with them being evidenced based, why would that be the case - what's it based on?
So to answer your question, I (personally) prefer someone who's balanced (evidence based and ability to trust energy to do some of the work instead of them taking credit) and doesn't treat energy work like some mystery tool or magic. That's usually a tell-tale sign they're not sure they believe what they practice but hope that you do. I'm not sure if I've ever met anyone who treats energy work as something matter-of-fact and doesn't try to cast a limelight on themselves.
Therapists that never bought into energy work. I think that's a fine thing, possibly better than someone who claims they can perform magic. I don't think belief is necessary. It's just something that happens. If someone is really into what they're doing, I believe energy plays a part even if they aren't aware.
I don't know about a forced blockage in those who aren't interested in giving or receiving energy work. I think it has more to do with levels of subtlety in that person. For men, adrenaline plays a pretty big factor in ability to feel sensation (or rather, lack of). If someone is quite athletic, they typically prefer - and possibly need - deep tissue. I used to work on an athlete that had the tightest IT band I've ever experienced. I nearly had to beat him up to get the muscles to release (it's what he wanted), but funny thing was, when that tactic didn't work, I told him if he was open to it, could we try energy work to see if we got any results. His tissue literally melted under my hands. He couldn't believe it. When he got up from that session, he was bouncing all over the room, feeling a range of motion he hadn't had in too long. I think it's great there are therapists of evidence based purely, because people need them. But for those who are more physically and/or emotionally sensitive, they may need a lighter touch or energy work. No such thing as one size fits all. We need all types of therapists for all types of people. I don't think one type of massage holds a higher stand than another. But I do think most have an energy component.
-
-
Synchronicity at work here! lol
Rick Britton said:I practice light touch therapy and am mainly going for 'melting' tissue... just the other day i was trying to release a vastus lateralis/IT band restriction and was n't getting anywhere fast... i took my hands off and felt the bio-electric field and found something i thought would benefit from my 'energy' work.
spent about 30 seconds working energetically then gave one palm stroke to palpate.... the whole leg that was tight and restricted 30 secs earlier had turned to jello and was easy to massage properly from then on...
client was blown away... 'whoa dude that was amazing you like totally melted my leg..awesome'
(he was quite young lol - and he also reported feeling the same release in his opposite quad too)
whether anyone can design an experiment, detect what i did or whatever... both myself and my client know that something happened, that healing was facilitated and that's good enough for me.
-
Permalink Reply by Denea on
-
What is it that you do for work?
Christopher A. Moyer said: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 Christopher A. Moyer on
-
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.
When determining cause-and-effect, the only time one does not use an experiment is when ethical or real-world considerations prevent it.
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.
I didn't carefully familiarize myself with your proposed study. I think I must've missed that, or perhaps I read it and forgot about it. What you describe here sounds sensible, but without knowing the specific hypothesis that it is intended to test, I can't say much about it.
By your assertion of RCT infallibility
I have hardly asserted RCT infallibility. What I've pointed out, many time now, is that one must do an experiment if one wishes to determine cause-and-effect while simultaneously ruling out competing explanations.
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.
You're right, that test would be idiotic. The effects of NaCl are not = Na + Cl. Further, if one wanted to know the effects of NaCl, you wouldn't test Na or Cl separately, as you go on to say. You would have one condition that has NaCl, and one that doesn't.
The exact same logic can be used to test combination therapies. We want to know what massage therapy does. But massage therapy isn't one thing! It's touch, and stroking, and perhaps some chat, and soft music, and soft lighting, etc. But we can still consider that group of things (in whatever amounts and combination we wish to specify) as the entity "massage therapy."
-
-
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.
You're certainly correct that applied psychology is complicated and inexact.
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?
Psychology is much broader than psychotherapy. I see massage as a really good subject for me as a psychologist - in other words, I'm not outside my field. Massage can be used to influence emotion, so it may have value as a treatment. It works in the other direction, too - we may be able to use it as a tool to learn more about how emotional processes work.
As for what I'm avoiding in myself - I don't know. Do you have a hypothesis?
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.
I'm not doing any research at all on 'energy.' And you're right, I've very, very confident that it doesn't exist. But as I've said over and over, I'm totally open to being shown that I'm wrong. All it will take is evidence. (But not an anecdote, or thousands of anecdotes - that's not evidence.)
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.
How convenient.
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 don't think it was unethical. Someone could be doing energy work on me right now, for all I know. It makes no difference to me.
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.
That's a very misleading thing to say. Religions aren't based on evidence. They don't change, or when they do change, it is not definitively in the direction of progress. Science is progressive. We know more today - and can prove it - than we did last week, last year, last century.
In science, one never needs to take the word of someone else, whereas in religion, that's the whole enchilada. If science makes a claim and you doubt it, you can check it yourself.
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. =)
It would be more accurate to say that science has discovered that it doesn't work.
You say there are only 2 types of medicine, medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. It betrays your own black/white thinking.
No it doesn't. It's obvious that works / does not work is a categorical system made up from what is actually continuous. Some medicine works really well, some well, some hardly at all, some not at all. Some is even harmful. But we can still logically divide that into works vs. doesn't work.
As for black/white thinking - in some cases, things are dichotomous.
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)
Yup, all true. No argument here. The reason we know that some drugs work, and that they work differently for different people and under different conditions? Science.
Love. [snip]
Don't take us off track. We're not talking about love, though one can study some aspects of love meaninfully.
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.
I kicked off this discussion because I suspected there might be people who would like to discuss it, and that I might have substantive information to add to it. As for having a closed mind, I will say again - it's not closed. I'm ready to get on the energy bandwagon. All I need is evidence. Simple.
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.
No, not really. I'm feeling pretty good about my work. It's going quite well.
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.
Then why are you joining it?
Whether you flash around years of titles and education,
When or where have I done that?!
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.
Energy work doesn't get to claim the placebo response all for itself. And sometimes medicine is the answer. If I get malaria, I want the drugs, thank you very much.
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.
You accuse me of being so certain, and imply that I am being dogmatic - but now you are definitively asserting the existence of something that you cannot show evidence of. Are you prepared to entertain the possibility that this so-called energy does not exist, and that the phenomena experienced by energy workers and their recipients are entirely explainable by non-energy means?
Personally, I would never be interested in receiving massage therapy from someone who is a “science based massage therapist.”
Actually, I think you may make a good point here. I have thought about the fact that some of the most effective therapists (in a variety of practices) may be those persons who are not trained as scientists and/or who practice more intuitively. That does not mean that what they do is not capable of being studied scientifically.
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.
All field of applied science have things that they have been wrong about for a while. But the really great thing about science is that bad ideas get overthrown. Energy work seems to be opposite this - unwilling to test its assumptions, or to discard any part of itself that doesn't work.
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?
I can compare energy to a peanut butter sandwich, too, if I want to. Such comparisons are meaningless.
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?
Yes.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence, then say you don’t even know what’s meant by connection.
'Connection' could mean a lot of different things. The person who wrote that needs to say more specifically what type of connection they meant if we are going to go any further with their example.
What you’re suggesting is another rhesus monkey experiment, putting a bottle of milk on wires that look like a mother.
Actually, that's seems to be what you are suggesting, since I didn't say anything much like that. However, I will note that the Harlow monkey experiments on attachment are exemplars of creative, innovative, and well-controlled research. (Their ethics is another matter.)
Come on. Will you really go to any length of ridiculousness to attempt to prove your stance?
I didn't even know I am attempting to prove anything. What am I attempting to prove?
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.
You've got the skeptic part right. But one can be skeptical and open-minded, and scientists who are not open-minded tend not to be very good at their work.
As for tangible - something can be real without being tangible. Weather is real, but you can't hold it in your hand. You should have said "is real" where you said "tangible."
-
-
Regardless of the validity of this post, Bodhi has a habit of posting articles from various sources that seem to have an anti-alternative medicine agenda without vetting the content information himself.
So what? We know his general position, and we all tend to post things we are interested in and that are likely to be consistent with our beliefs. Bodhi is intelligent enough that he may post some of them to see if an intelligent reader might be able to rebut them and cause him to rethink his own position.
If Bodhi wants to make an assertion, he should do it himself with documentation or offer it as his experience based opinion. If he is going to post an assertion from another source, he owes it to his readers to properly vett it before republishing or linking to it.
He doesn't have to vet anything. Let the reader make up their own mind.
-
-
Denea: What is it that you do for work?
Hi Denea. Thanks for asking. Briefly, I am a professor in a department of psychology at a university. I teach several courses a semester, and also conduct research on massage therapy. I'm especially interested in how and why massage therapy can reduce anxiety and depression.
We have nice laboratory facilities here and can do almost any kind of scientific investigation I can dream up. We have a treatment room where we can conduct table or chair massage, and we can interview or survey people on their experience receiving massage, their level of anxiety or pain or depression, etc. We can also assess all kinds of psychophysiological variables such as heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, brain wave activity, muscle tension, posture, etc. I have about two dozen students, including two who are massage therapists, who assist in the research to varying degrees. Some are very involved, and some just occasionally come to meetings. It's a lot of fun, and very interesting. Currently we have about four different projects nearing completion.
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
If you are going to promote yourself as 'evidence based' I assert that it is relevant to your own stated position to adhere to evidence based posts. Just because something may imply or conclude a position that is consistent with one's own belief does not excuse one from adhering to the very standards one asserts.
Christopher A. Moyer said:Regardless of the validity of this post, Bodhi has a habit of posting articles from various sources that seem to have an anti-alternative medicine agenda without vetting the content information himself.
So what? We know his general position, and we all tend to post things we are interested in and that are likely to be consistent with our beliefs. Bodhi is intelligent enough that he may post some of them to see if an intelligent reader might be able to rebut them and cause him to rethink his own position.
If Bodhi wants to make an assertion, he should do it himself with documentation or offer it as his experience based opinion. If he is going to post an assertion from another source, he owes it to his readers to properly vett it before republishing or linking to it. He doesn't have to vet anything. Let the reader make up their own mind.
So What? I'll tell you what. He is guilty of the same lack of evidence based assertions he complains about. His Intelligence is irrelevant to his posting articles that are no more evidence based than the claims he decries. I assert that these un vetted postings amount to nothing more than dissemination of propaganda. I wish Bodhi would use his intelligence to further evidence based practice instead of attacking anything he does not agree with. Bodhi has the potential to help move treatment based massage forward, but instead chooses to play the part of Harry Houdini and expose fraudulent claims which most of us already understand are fraudulent, and in the process denounces alternative treatments through postings that are simply not true.
And Bodhi is not looking for a rebut, and has not answered the rebut I posted to his 'Kava" reprint article. He ignores it and continues to post anything that is in agreement with his position.
He doesn't have to vet anything. Let the reader make up their own mind.
Yes, and that is what corporate news claims. Get two 'opinionated' individuals and let them shout it out with 'concision', no EVIDENCE necessary, or for that matter even allowed or possible due to the mounds of misleading and manufactured evidence and the 'necessity' of concision. Or interruption from the other side.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
