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
-
Everyone:
No one's answered two questions I believe are germane to this topic:
1. Do you believe energy work involves a separate entity?
2. Which modalities and or whole system approaches do you consider energy work?
Chris, you may have answered my first question when you said you don't believe in a vital force, but I'm not sure; do you think vital force involves a separate entity?
RSD is reflexive sympathic dystrophy; basically, an advanced form of fibromyalgia.
Serge, you've explained what alot of us believe energy work includes; however, we have been challenged to think about our terminology and your description may not be the prevailing attitude among bodyworkers.
-
Permalink Reply by Serge Rivest on
-
This is why I said 'my theory' and not what everybody else's think. The idea here was to present a model that could fit both the 'energy work' and the 'evidence-based model'.
You're raise a good point, before arguing we should first define what we are arguing about. To me, I consider energy work to be any kind of massage that doesn't make any rational sense. Practitioners of those modalities often use some sounds science and bend it to suit their reality. Examples of that would be magnet therapies, crystal therapies, reiki, reflexology, homeopathy, tapping, etc, etc.
Here's a classic example from James Randi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSKxz1BNU6s
Robin Byler Thomas said:Everyone:
No one's answered two questions I believe are germane to this topic:
1. Do you believe energy work involves a separate entity?
2. Which modalities and or whole system approaches do you consider energy work?
Chris, you may have answered my first question when you said you don't believe in a vital force, but I'm not sure; do you think vital force involves a separate entity?
RSD is reflexive sympathic dystrophy; basically, an advanced form of fibromyalgia.
Serge, you've explained what alot of us believe energy work includes; however, we have been challenged to think about our terminology and your description may not be the prevailing attitude among bodyworkers.
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
I agree that the two should not be mixed, at least from a scope-of-work perspective, but disagree about the gullible statement. If there was no benefit to believing, people would not be able to do it - evolution would had gotten rid of it, no?
Serge Rivest said:Julianna Holden Mohler said:
I would be happy for a split in the profession: evidence-based massage vs belief-based massage. We could get government funding, research and could help lots of sick people with evidence-based massage while the belief-based massage can run their own show for the unfortunates who are gullible enough to get sucked in.
-
-
I don’t use the term “energy beings” but I kind of like it. It makes me think of a human being as a network of ‘things’, with a hierarchy to it (macro to micro, on several levels), each level having intelligence and specific rules, and the underlying force (for lack of better term) that keeps it all going. We can talk about each part, or we can talk about each part in reference to other parts. Like cloud-computing in a sense (I spent too many years in IT), where a bunch of computers work and communicate as part of a network, each of them not fully grasping the magnitude of the network they are part of, nor fully understanding how each sub-part and process is part of the cloud, yet working together and communicating using various communication protocols. Or, like Dr. Seuss' "Horton Hears a Who" in a way:)
Chris, you said “humans, like all living things, are metabolic systems.” What is your definition of a living thing?
Christopher A. Moyer said:I recently asked what it means to say we are "energetic beings". I can think of at least three ways this could be interpreted.
1. Humans, just like all living things, are metabolic systems. Life is maintained by (we might even say life *is*) the process of capturing energy from our environment, in the form of food, and using it to sustain our bodies. 2. 'Energy' is really just a stand-in for, or another way to refer to, psychological processes such as social contagion, communication of emotion, the placebo effect, and others. How we feel about ourselves, our lives, and our patients is likely to have an effect on our patients, and to interact with the (other) treatments we are conducting for their benefit.
3. Humans, and perhaps other living things, have some kind of vital force; the concept of chi or ki would be an example of this. Attuned therapists can alter, channel, or direct their own vital force and/or influence the vital force of another person. (This viewpoint would be an example of dualism, in contrast to the predominant modern scientific view of
.)
Do these three categories cover the topic well?
To which do you yourself subscribe? I suspect everyone (apart from a couple of charlatans who claim not to eat, and the people who believe them) agree with #1. Number 2 seems to me to be a fallback position some energy work proponents use when they are at a loss to give evidence of number 3, which would appear to be the basis of energy work practices in theory.
-
Permalink Reply by Deborah Herriage on
-
Hi Christopher. I'm new to the site, but I'll take a bite (ha, yeah, it rhymes).
I don't know what your skepticism is based on or the history of the previous thread that was diverted. I'm assuming that you are skeptical because energy cannot be seen and its effects are not prominently displayed.
Here's my thoughts, based on my experience, first as a yoga teacher and practitioner, and as a massage therapist.
As an aside, I will also add that Thomas Edison was ridiculed and laughed at in his day before the world lit up. Check him out. (Also Nikola Tesla).
Ahem, Ok, here I go: Energy work can NOT be discounted. Whether you are performing any massage, which is what I commonly refer to as "the laying on of hands" you are transferring some energy to the person you are touching, as they are to you. Energy moves in, out, around, over, under, and through us because we are also energetic fields, however dense, with more or less activity.
In yoga, the breath creates the cardiovascular response that is required to name "yoga" as an "exercise". It may seem trite, or even outrageous to make this claim, but breathing in and out is transferring energy. A metabolic process then moves energy around in the body, and releases toxins (also energy) and stimulates an energetic renewal to the brain (the brain becomes more active).
This over simplification relates also to what happens in massage therapy.
In our western culture, we have migrated away from ancient practices and beliefs about energy and whether it is real or where its presence is. Religious culture has tainted these beliefs as counter to "the miracle" of Christ, even though, Jesus himself practiced meditation, breath exercises, laying on of hands (reiki) and other of the lost arts.
So as not to go on and on dissertation style, I will leave you with these ideas and you can then propose what it is about energy work you find doubtful.
Do this little exercise. Close your eyes and rub your hands together until they are very warm. Then, move them toward each other, palms facing one another, as though you are forming a ball. Do this slowly and notice the results.
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Debo
-
Permalink Reply by Julianna Holden Mohler on
-
Christopher A. Moyer said:
I'll try to say these things as nicely as I can.
Magnanimous of you. lol I think I'm a big girl and very confident I don't need your approval.
This discussion is about a skeptical approach to energy medicine. Your approach is not at all skeptical. That's fine, but I'm not sure what kind of impact you hoped to make on this discussion with your entirely nonskeptical perspective.
Chris, to be clear, this discussion is not about skepticism in any way. You have a well formulated conclusion that you've yet to write. You have said clearly: Energy does not exist. That is what this discussion should be entitled. For someone to be skeptical, it can mean unbelieving, doubt, but doubt implies the door hasn't been closed. You've closed the door. I'm skeptical about some things I hear and have experienced, even my own, but I don't rule out anything completely as you do.
In addition, you're not well informed about several of the things that we are discussing
I never claimed to be, but you claim to be. Admit that you're a wannabe poser, and we'll be done with this discussion. =) You are no more scientific than anyone else. It's not your field of expertise and this is clear in all that you conclude and write.
you assume that one must believe in a vital force to understand that there are living things.
Chris, Chris, lighten up. I made a joke! I know nothing about a vital force. =)
This simply isn't the case. In fact, the majority of working scientists in modern times reject dualism as an assumption.
Say huh?
-
-
Personal attacks in posts are irrelevant to the topic. Can someone moderate those?
Julianna Holden Mohler said:Christopher A. Moyer said:
I'll try to say these things as nicely as I can.
Magnanimous of you. lol I think I'm a big girl and very confident I don't need your approval.
This discussion is about a skeptical approach to energy medicine. Your approach is not at all skeptical. That's fine, but I'm not sure what kind of impact you hoped to make on this discussion with your entirely nonskeptical perspective.
Chris, to be clear, this discussion is not about skepticism in any way. You have a well formulated conclusion that you've yet to write. You have said clearly: Energy does not exist. That is what this discussion should be entitled. For someone to be skeptical, it can mean unbelieving, doubt, but doubt implies the door hasn't been closed. You've closed the door. I'm skeptical about some things I hear and have experienced, even my own, but I don't rule out anything completely as you do.
In addition, you're not well informed about several of the things that we are discussing
I never claimed to be, but you claim to be. Admit that you're a wannabe poser, and we'll be done with this discussion. =) You are no more scientific than anyone else. It's not your field of expertise and this is clear in all that you conclude and write.
you assume that one must believe in a vital force to understand that there are living things.
Chris, Chris, lighten up. I made a joke! I know nothing about a vital force. =)
This simply isn't the case. In fact, the majority of working scientists in modern times reject dualism as an assumption.
Say huh?
-
-
This discussion is productive in the sense that it seems to help massage therapists find where they stand on an issue and nuances. Other than that, I doubt it's swayed anyone in any direction - in fact, this topic seems to have no point at all other than to stir up a pot for the purpose of one's own self-aggrandizement.
But, I think we need to take some pretty important things into account. And that is, the history of a scientific method in medicine. Perhaps too many things are completely overlooked and discounted from what should be a holistic approach.
As most of us know, historians have named Hippocrates as the Father of Medicine in the western world and he laid the cornerstone for modern medical and nutritional science. The real greatness of Hippocrates was not only in turning the healing arts away from magic and superstition to a more scientific approach, but in recognizing that therapy must be consistent with nature and the design of the human body. Most all of his writings on nutrition have been completely abandoned by western mainstream medicine.
"Natural forces within us are the true healers of disease." (Hippocrates) He doesn't define these forces. But this is what I think of when someone mentions "vital force." It's not something apart from us, nor a separate entity. It's in us. Robin, you asked and that's my reply. Chris will never answer questions, he avoids any good and valid points made by anyone, he only tears apart for an attempt at having an upper hand (in his own mind anyway). So good luck on that one. He believes all energy medicine and energy work to be completely baseless and non-existent, merely a belief system. He, himself, is not a scientist but is posing as one. It's not his profession.
"Food should be our medicine, and our medicine should be our food." (Hippocrates) Yet, in the 1980s, only 24 out of 130 medical schools required nutrition courses. Before that, none did. The pharmaceutical industry has no interest in helping people buy ordinary things at ordinary prices. It would put them out of business. They only fund research that benefits their pocketbook.
Hippocrates believed in the power of positive thinking. "Some patients, though conscious that their condition is perilous, recover their health simply through their contentment with the goodness of the physician," he wrote. He found that when patients trust you, they seem to get well more consistently. He also said that the genuine good intentions of the physician were vital.
The placebo affect has every bit of relevance to healing, in other words. If the power of belief (in wellness for oneself) induces healing, then there is a factor no one can measure in how the positive thought produced the healing. If the intention of my work is to bring about wellness to the degree the person desires it, if I treat that person ethically and with integrity, it can and does affect their well-being, and that can be measured.
Hospitals and clinics all over the world have incorporated energy medicine, biofeedback, positive thinking methods, hypnosis, and various forms of healthcare that have nothing to do with chemicals nor external means of manipulation to achieve results. It calls upon the forces of nature within one to correct the imbalance.
-
-
Christopher A. Moyer said:
To give just one example, you assume that one must believe in a vital force to understand that there are living things. This simply isn't the case. In fact, the majority of working scientists in modern times reject dualism as an assumption.
I already commented on this in a previous post, but in reflecting, I understand what you meant now. I do not believe that one must believe in a vital force even though my joke implied it. The language of science is quite different from my own natural one. When I saw the term "vital force," I immediately thought it to mean "natural force." I completely understand that modern day scientists "reject dualism," i.e. not a separate entity. This is in line with my thinking. Yet, most physicists believe there is a force called God but again, this is not separate from us. If you want to use the term non-dual, we can also discuss Buddhism or Hinduism thought systems. They were in place long before science. We could even bring Tolstoy's work into it, "The Kingdom of God is Within Us." But I didn't really care to get involved in a philosophical discussion, and it's certain that isn't your intent in this forum.
But, if you asked me how we were created, it's also not a force separate from ourselves but is not us either.
I will never think the way a scientist does, and I don't pretend to nor do I care to.
If you asked me what energy work was, which you didn't because you don't really seem to care what massage therapists think it is, nor do you care to define what you mean by it, I would say it's this non-dual force that works through us, that's part of us. We are not separate beings either. This is why you hear so many massage therapists say, "We are One." Or some of the crazy things you hear about being the universe or whatever.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
C: In addition, you're not well informed about several of the things that we are discussing
J: I never claimed to be
Classic.
C: This simply isn't the case. In fact, the majority of working scientists in modern times reject dualism as an assumption.
J: Say huh?
Maybe you can get your theoretical physicist to explain it to you.
Goodbye.
-
-
No one's answered two questions I believe are germane to this topic:
1. Do you believe energy work involves a separate entity?
No. I've already indicated I don't even think there really is energy work.
2. Which modalities and or whole system approaches do you consider energy work?
Well, none. :) But any modality that is based around detection of and/or manipulation of a vital force would fit the definition, I think. Some of these are clearer than others.
NCCAM used to have a page that distinguished veritable energy from putative, biofield energy, but it seems to have been taken away. Someone else has a post of it, though:
http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.aspx?Id=2407
Chris, you may have answered my first question when you said you don't believe in a vital force, but I'm not sure; do you think vital force involves a separate entity?
There is no vital force.
Serge, you've explained what alot of us believe energy work includes
To the contrary - Serge has highlighted veritable forms of energy, and disputed the existence of energy work.
-
-
I agree that the two should not be mixed, at least from a scope-of-work perspective, but disagree about the gullible statement. If there was no benefit to believing, people would not be able to do it - evolution would had gotten rid of it, no?
Personally, I do not object to Serge's use of "gullible" in that context, but perhaps a better word choice would have been "credulous."
Evolution will have shaped us not to see the world exactly as it is, but to perceive it in a way that will maximize the survivability of our genes. In some cases, this may mean it is acceptable for us to perceive things that are not actually there. Face perception is one good example of this. It is so essential for us to perceive faces when they are there, that our facial recognition system can easily go too far and perceive faces where there are none (pareidolia). This is relatively harmless, but the opposite - a failure to recognize a true face - would probably be a disaster (which is why you almost never encounter someone who does this, except in rare cases of severe head injury).
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
