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 Robin Byler Thomas on
-
Actually, Bodhi's review is relevant to this discussion as his review of MT research for chronic neck pain concludes "no recommendations for practice can be made at this time because the effectiveness of massage for neck pain remains uncertain"; similiar to the conclusions reached in studies of energy work.
This is common to most reviews of the research in massage therapy, so how can you still defend the lack of effidence for energy work?
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 Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Bert, I agree with that statement. I think the people who stumble across this discussion see that too.
Bert Davich said: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.
-
-
Hi Celia,
That's a good point. I don't know about other states, but in the State of Illinois, massage therapy is separate from energy-based work, faith-based work, and eastern-based modalities. Which, I think, is a good thing.
Emmanuel
Celia Bucci said:Christopher A. Moyer said:Hi Stefanie.
What if massage therapy was just massage therapy, evidence based and as well-developed as it could possibly be? Are there other folks who have wondered that, and if so, how many?
I have wondered that, and frequently think that the strong defense of energy work happens precisely because it gets lumped in with massage. As a client I've tried both, and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But as a practitioner I am focused on evidence based massage therapy. I'd like very much to see a separate body of knowledge and standards of practice for massage therapy - just massage therapy. And if those who study and practice energy work want to follow a similar professional direction, they could develop a separate body of knowledge and standards of practice. I think that as long as massage and energy work are trapped under the same roof, both suffer.
-
-
No worries, take your time; we can leave teasers to illicit interest until then.
Vlad said: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!
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
Skepticism is a wonderful value and it serves us well. Reading the thread I'm trying to decide what your quest truly is. To prove beyond a shadow that energy work is silly; has no value, and couldn't possibly have any effect or could there be something else?
I'm not on a quest, at least not concerning energy work. I started this thread simply as a location for people to discuss a skeptical approach to thinking about energy work. That's all. As for whether it is "silly" or not, I try to avoid such terms, because I don't want people to think I might be talking about them as individuals. I don't think someone is silly if they believe in, receive, or practice energy work. That doesn't change the fact that I'm quite certain there is no 'energy' being 'worked.'
You've noted your interest in how massage can reduce anxiety and depression. My 45 y/o client with invasive breast cancer requests "my hocus-pocus stuff" (her term) and if that lowers her anxiety and depression is she well served with energy work or not?
But isn't that conflating the placebo effect with what energy work may, or may not, be doing? She requests energy work; you perform it on her; she reports improvement. Her improvement *might* be due to energy work, but they also might be due to the fact that she has been relaxing, that she feels she is being attended to in a nurturing way, and due to the fact that she expects to improve. All those can happen without any 'energy work' having occurred.
As to all the above, Shakespeare said it best...."there are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy......
Ugh. I knew it couldn't be long before that old chestnut showed up. Sorry, but I'm not relying on a fictional character from an Elizabethan-era play to tell me what science can and cannot do. :)
-
-
I take it that you use an EEG for monitoring brain wave activity.
Right. We have some 8-channel machines, and a new high-zoot 64 channel machine. We may even upgrade that to 128 channel.
I know Field did some work with that, have you?
No, but we've considered it. TRI has done at least two studies that have assessed changes in hemispherical activation. We've looked at them and considered doing replication studies or similar, and we might sometime, but I have some other directions I'm more eager to pursue.
What tool do you use to measure skin conductance?
We have Biopac setups that can be connected to a variety of sensors. For skin conductance, we attach a couple of electrodes to your hand. These connect to a Biopac amplifier which feeds the data into a computer, such that we can monitor the moment-to-moment activity in the sweat glands of the hand. The sweat glands in your hand are 'hard wired' to the sympathetic nervous system, such that they make a nice measure of SNS activity.
-
-
Bert -
Our discussions on this matter don't seem productive. Do you agree? I'm going to try and clarify a few things, but in the absence of progress, I'm not sure I want to go any farther with this.
1. I'm not currently doing any energy work research, nor do I plan on it. I started this thread as a place for people who might want to discuss skepticism about energy work. The topic is relevant to massage therapy, as I am increasingly seeing how many massage therapists consider energy work and massage therapy to be linked or related.
2. Yes, I consider an experiment to be THE ONLY test for the existence of the purported energy. If you think that makes me a blinkered dummy, so be it.
3. Your chemistry example - I didn't evade your question, nor is my answer an example of a straw man tactic. (In fact, you tend to evade my questions, and tend to disregard points that I make.) Now you come up with yet another illustration of your point, but I'm bored with this exercise. Yes, it's perfectly clear to me that a combination of ingredients can act as more than the sum of those ingredients. You'll say I am missing the point, or evading the issue, or whatever. Fine.
-
-
This is common to most reviews of the research in massage therapy, so how can you still defend the lack of effidence for energy work?
There are logical reasons, based on accumulated scientific knowledge, to expect that massage therapy might reduce neck pain. Despite that, it is still possible that it doesn't. The evidence isn't clear one way or the other, yet. Therefore, more research is needed.
There are no logical reasons, based on accumulated scientific knowledge, to expect that there is any 'energy' that can be 'worked' in the ways maintained by energy work. In the absence of a paradigm-shattering scientific discovery, more research is not needed.
-
-
Emmanuel Bistas said:Bert, I agree with that statement. I think the people who stumble across this discussion see that too.
Bert Davich said: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.
Hi Emmanuel.
I'm sorry to hear that's how some folks are interpreting it. This thread has contained some good discussions, and several people have written me to tell me that they are glad I started it, and that the massage therapy profession needs its connection to energy work challenged.
I've also had several people who do massage therapy research tell me that they have been following this thread but won't participate in it because they find it exasperating. Notice that there are hardly any other researchers participating in this discussion.
Finally, I myself am not engaged in energy work research, unless one considers massage therapy research to be synonymous. If folks fear that my skepticism on the subject blinds me to the way it really should be researched, they have nothing to worry about, because I'm not researching it. Why am I not researching it? Because I think it would be a waste of time to do so. But that's just me. Other people are interested in researching it, and they can choose to do that. If they do choose to do that, they may be interested in knowing how someone like myself would critique their research. I, or someone like me, might end up as a reviewer of their study, after all.
-
Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on
-
Chris,
Our discussions on this matter don't seem productive. Do you agree? I'm going to try and clarify a few things, but in the absence of progress, I'm not sure I want to go any farther with this.
I agree
2. Yes, I consider an experiment to be THE ONLY test for the existence of the purported energy. If you think that makes me a blinkered dummy, so be it.
I never implied you are a dummy nor do I think you are, and I agree with an experiment. We just seem disagree on the proper model to use for a valid experiment. Also I want to attempt to measure the effect of injecting (or removing) energy work into the equation, or establish there is no measurable change, and I think you want to measure the actual energy itself.
OK enough said on this subject.
-
-
Chris,
Thanks for your participation.
I should say I was under the (incorrect) impression that you did have some interest in experimentation with energy work yourself.
-
-
Thanks Bert. Your participation is also appreciated. Even though we disagree, misunderstand each other, or both, I can tell that it isn't personal and that we respect each other.
I was thinking about our discussion on my short drive home today, and was wondering how it might be different if we were having it in person. I have a feeling it would go smoother and make some progress. I've got to believe that some of our failure to understand what the other saying is down to doing this in a text-based forum.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
