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 Christopher A. Moyer on
-
So What? I'll tell you what. He is guilty of the same lack of evidence based assertions he complains about.
Nonsense. Bodhi or anyone else can post a link to a story without being responsible for every detail of the story. As for his evidence-based credentials, Bodhi has made a substantial contribution to the scientific knowledge of massage therapy by completing this review.
I'm not very interested in discussing Bodhi's postings further. It strikes me as a non-issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Kelly Lindsay on
-
I love this topic! I used to be a skeptic, but now I am not! I started my massage career without feeling the need to indulge in the energetic side of it all. I thought it was a bunch of baloney.
However, one of my massage colleagues introduced me to energy work by doing some Reiki on me. Now a few years later, I am a Level 2 Reiki practitioner working on getting to the next level, I view the subject a bit different. I have seen the influence of positive energy move in my clients. But, sometimes I think a simple smile and a hug do the same trick. I think balance and moderation are key. I don't claim to have any special power or control over the energy field, but I will use any "tool" I can get a hold of, and that feels right to me, to help my clients relax, to relieve tension, and to help them help themselves.
-
Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on
-
Hey, can we talk about his review? Bodhi completed a great review showing, as with most past MT studies, the research on chronic neck pain has not been well done. His points, among others, were that research needs to include the background of the MT, exactly what methods were used in the MT protocol, and should be testable for MT separate from other treatment modalities.
Here's one completed earlier this year addressing Bodhi's points as well as good matching at baseline and displaying outcomes as the proportion receiving each treatment benefiting to a "clinically meaningful extent". They provided a treatment protocol that reflected common practice, rigorous randomization, good adherence to treatment recommendations, high follow-up rates, and the use of recommended outcome measures administered by interviewers blinded to treatment group.
Have you read this study Christopher and what do you think of it?
Christopher A. Moyer said:So What? I'll tell you what. He is guilty of the same lack of evidence based assertions he complains about.
Nonsense. Bodhi or anyone else can post a link to a story without being responsible for every detail of the story. As for his evidence-based credentials, Bodhi has made a substantial contribution to the scientific knowledge of massage therapy by completing this review.
I'm not very interested in discussing Bodhi's postings further. It strikes me as a non-issue. - Attachments:
-
-
I love this topic!
Hi Kelly. Thanks for jumping in. I'm glad you appreciate this topic.
-
-
Robin -
Is that study relevant to the topic of the thread (energy work and skepticism), or does it deserve a new thread?
-
-
Hi Terry.
Hmmmmmm.....been reading this thread off and on today and am surprised at what some consider "energy work".
That suggests that you see it differently - is that correct? If so, how do you see it?
I don't know you Professor, but you seemed a bit cranky with that last response.
Ha, maybe a little. Not a lot.
-
-
It does deserve a new thread. This might be a good segway for Rosemary's latest endevor; Rosemary?
Christopher A. Moyer said:Robin -
Is that study relevant to the topic of the thread (energy work and skepticism), or does it deserve a new thread?
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Omigawd.
I've just been lurking here and I've been testing my hoogimajoby too.
Robin - I've been adding your notification add-on that you wanted to it and testing it tonight, BUT I NEED ANOTHER DAY TO TEST A COUPLE OF THINGS that have to do with that add-on.
I'll come on here tomorrow night again and let people know about it. T'will be the unveiling!
(You know, science is wonderful. We'd all be using smoke signals to talk about this stuff if it wasn't for science. Or better still - drums!)
YES - the study would be a perfect one to add to it.
Tomorrow night!
Be here!
-
-
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 take it that you use an EEG for monitoring brain wave activity. I know Field did some work with that, have you?
What tool do you use to measure skin conductance?
Just wonderin'......
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Chris,
Your assertion:
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.
Great, except for the fact that you summarily reject any other method of experiment other than an RCT which you are already convinced will support your stated position. In fact you have stated that RCT's consistently prove your position that energy work is all invalid. Therefore if you are objective you should be considering if there is another model that might reveal something of interest.
My Post:
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.
Your Answer:
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.
That was a complete evasion of the question. The term for this form of fallacious logic would be "pointing to the straw man" Or you didn't bother to pay attention to the post.
My assertion was not if one wanted to know the effects of NaCl It was about (not) being able to determine which element (Na or Cl) was the effective agent in the results observed in the NaCl group by isolating the elements (Na & Cl) and repeating the same experiment.
Her is a more concrete example:
3 groups of 10 lab rats in a poorly ventilated small enclosure. Group 1 has a cup of bleach in the enclosure. Group 2 has a cup of ammonia in it's enclosure. Group 3 has a cup made up of 1/2 cup bleach combined with 1/2 cup of ammonia in it's enclosure. When the group 3 mice die from chlorine gas (which they will) can you then attribute the deaths to the ammonia or the bleach by observing the group1 and group 2 results?
This illustrates why I advocated an experiment earlier that would create the same conditions but one group would remove only the energy component, and we could then observe the difference:
method that might reveal anything of interest regarding the energy component outcomes, would be 3 treatment groups, each with subjects with similar issues to be addressed. 1 group treated conventionally by therapists who do not practice or believe in an energy component. 1 group treated by therapists with similar structural treatment skills who use an energy component as an integrated part of their practice and 1 group who does hands off energy work.
The devil, as always, is in the details, like finding therapists of equal therapeutic skills and clients with similar problems.
Your summary dismissal of ANY model other than that which you already assert has supported your conclusion leads one to the conclusion that you may be interested only in eliciting a reaction as recently posted by Terry:
I wondered if you are "analyzing energy uses, myths and truths" or just how people (MT's) respond when their buttons get pushed a bit.......
At this point I feel that if you are unwilling to explore other models of experimentation, it appears you are just pushing buttons to elicit a reaction. Particularly considering you recent post about your ability to conduct experiments:
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.
-
-
Vlad,
This question you posed is alone, worth the price of admission!
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?
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
