massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Critical thinking in Vancouver
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
"Going on best evidence" is part of a critical thinking tool set. Logical arguments are part of critical thinking, absolutely, but without evidence all one has is a fancy argument."
You're right. It's a subset of other skills. I actually knew that what I wrote wasn't what I was trying to say about 20 minutes after I'd posted (you can't edit it after 15) and someone would call me on it.
And beliefs without evidence should be questioned. We should question why we have them too.
I have problems when people use the "there is no evidence for God therefore he doesn't exist" argument though. Critical thinking skills in every other area of life is cool. It's not as if I haven't thought about this, by the way. I'm not pro-organized religion at all, but I do believe that people (including me) can benefit from an individual spiritual belief - even if it is equivalent to a placebo effect for the mind. So essentially, yes, I have opted out.
Here's my beef: SCIENCE vs. GOD.
It's nearly like if you're pro-science then obviously you must be anti-God - otherwise you obviously haven't thought things through enough or your critical thinking skills are just lacking. I have come across that attitude and argument quite a bit in my travels (and when you state your background, I can state that in my background I have come across quite a few logical thinkers - some of them were even at a University). I honestly didn't mind being judged as lacking in critical thinking skills because I believe in God - what I do mind is that it's driving people against even looking at science. The Science Vs God situation that is used in evangelical atheism is actually doing harm in how science is viewed - it demonizes it. That's not cool.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
Emmanuel Bistas said:Brian, I think you may benefit from a massage.
Someone like Brian, who is new to this specific site, takes the time to write a detailed, well-reasoned response to your half-baked post, and you have the temerity to write something as flippant as that? Seriously?!
Come on Emmanuel, don't waste our time like that. Seriously.
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Christopher, there is a lot that I could say to your arrogant comment. But I will not. Because I am not you. And you could probably benefit from a massage too. So, have a good day!
-
-
Vlad said:
Here's my beef: SCIENCE vs. GOD. It's nearly like if you're pro-science then obviously you must be anti-God - otherwise you obviously haven't thought things through enough or your critical thinking skills are just lacking.
Vlad, thank you for being so honest. Also, thank you for your groovy literacy thread, it gave me several ideas for my research literacy class, not sure where you got the idea that it turns people off. I would suggest that you keep it up.
And thank you for your "Diamond Polisher" article, where you present scientific evidence as a "tool for discovery", rather for "validation". What I particularly liked about the notion of “scientific evidence as a tool for discovery”, is that it comes from a perspective of humility, an understanding that there is a lot out there and we will use science to help us explore, rather than "we have the answers, let's see which ones are right and which ones are wrong"..
Sometimes science does come in conflict with personal beliefs, and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes, science is as limited in its grasp as are some of our beliefs. Take anatomy for example, just when we thought we had things counted there is a previously undescribed muscle (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/13/science/revision-for-gray-s-anato...) or a different perspective on evolution in Biology(the links I posted previously)
The “Science vs. G*d” conflict that you shared here is not unlike the conflicts that many massage therapists and bodyworkers experience when confronted by the evidence-based crew. “You are either a critical thinker and part of our group or you believe in G*d and you are part of that group, but you can’t be in both groups” is usually phrased as “You are either evidence-based and are part of our group, or practice [enter modality here] and are part of the quacks, but not both” when it is used to attack energy work. Elitism and arrogance indeed turn off people, no matter where it’s coming from. Yet, massage therapists want to do well for their clients and value science even if they are turned of by the messengers.
Lara, I think science and energy work can coexist. Indeed they have for years. The public spends billions of dollars every year to have a nice mix of options. Western medical options, eastern options, prayer, it’s all there. Diversity rocks! Personal choice rules, not Mr. Chopra, or Moyer, or Mr. Brian, or whoever. People are smarter than skeptics think.
Brian, to explain my previous post which was discarded by Christopher as a waste of your (his?) time. This is a discussion and you are entitled to your beliefs, but coming to a massage and bodywork website and telling people that touch therapy doesn’t work.. hey, don’t you see anything wrong with that?
Dr. Moyer, I find it fascinating that within a few hours of your post on massageprofessionals.com, someone posted a link on the skeptic website about your post. After being quiet for so long after your virtual “beating” by Mike on another thread, and posting questions (because you are "curious", you said) on facebook through third parties, it looks like now you are showing up with your big brother. I am a bit skeptical about this post I guess, as I was about your facebook question and your other posts here. And I am still looking for evidence that what you do creates value for our profession.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Lynchehaun on
-
"This is a discussion and you are entitled to your beliefs, but coming to a massage and bodywork website and telling people that touch therapy doesn’t work.. hey, don’t you see anything wrong with that?"
No, I don't.
To clarify, as 'touch therapy' is a bit ambiguous: I'm specifically referring to Therapeutic Touch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch), Reiki, or any kind of laying on of hands, as opposed to anything that works muscle groups.
Opinions are fine. Where opinions conflict with facts, opinions need to change. If they don't, you're in quack-central. There are an abundance of studies demonstrating that the above listed things don't work. TT was disproven by an 11yo child (Emily Ross).
On the topic as 'science as validation': you're referring to something known as Scientific Positivism. This largely fell out of favour 50 years ago. To claim that science is bad because it 'merely' validates theories, and that it 'should' be used for discovery implies a gross misunderstanding of both Science (the day to day work) and Philosophy of Science (the frameworks within the day to day work takes place).
"just when we thought we had things counted there"
Who is this 'we' you are referring to? A much repeated citation in skeptic circles, typically to people who are rather ignorant of science, is: if science thought it was done, it would stop. By definition.
"People are smarter than skeptics think."
Really? You mean that intelligence distribution across a population doesn't follow a bell curve?
You seem to be in the habit of telling me what I think, without knowing a damn thing about me. Yet you have the gall to call others 'elitist and arrogant'.
For the record, there was no 'post' on "the skeptic website", there was what's called a 'pingback', which is an autogenerated link many websites use to notify the owner that their post has been referenced on a different website.
As much fun as paranoia and conspiracy theories are, I'm tired of your passive aggressive tone ("I find it fascinating that") and general condescension ("And I am still looking for evidence that what you do creates value for our profession"), so I'm outta here.
If anyone who has read these posts is interested in a genuine conversation (as opposed to passive aggressive bullying), please feel free to contact me directly. If you're in the Vancouver area, I would be more than happy to either meet up over a drink, and/or introduce you to some of the Evil Skeptics if you're interested.
Meanwhile, I leave you in the hands of your overseer, Mr. Emmanuel, to evaluate your value to your profession.
Brian
-
-
Good bye Brian.
Brian Lynchehaun said:"This is a discussion and you are entitled to your beliefs, but coming to a massage and bodywork website and telling people that touch therapy doesn’t work.. hey, don’t you see anything wrong with that?"
No, I don't.
To clarify, as 'touch therapy' is a bit ambiguous: I'm specifically referring to Therapeutic Touch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch), Reiki, or any kind of laying on of hands, as opposed to anything that works muscle groups.
Opinions are fine. Where opinions conflict with facts, opinions need to change. If they don't, you're in quack-central. There are an abundance of studies demonstrating that the above listed things don't work. TT was disproven by an 11yo child (Emily Ross).
On the topic as 'science as validation': you're referring to something known as Scientific Positivism. This feel out of favour 50 years ago. To claim that science is bad because it 'merely' validates theories, and that it 'should' be used for discovery implies a gross misunderstanding of both Science (the day to day work) and Philosophy of Science (the frameworks within the day to day work takes place).
"just when we thought we had things counted there"
Who is this 'we' you are referring to? A much repeated citation in skeptic circles, typically to people who are rather ignorant of science, is: if science thought it was done, it would stop. By definition.
"People are smarter than skeptics think."
Really? You mean that intelligence distribution across a population doesn't follow a bell curve?
You seem to be in the habit of telling me what I think, without knowing a damn thing about me. Yet you have the gall to call others 'elitist and arrogant'.
For the record, there was no 'post' on "the skeptic website", there was what's called a 'pingback', which is an autogenerated link many websites use to notify the owner that their post has been referenced on a different website.
As much fun as paranoia and conspiracy theories are, I'm tired of your passive aggressive tone ("I find it fascinating that") and general condescension ("And I am still looking for evidence that what you do creates value for our profession"), so I'm outta here.
If anyone who has read these posts is interested in a genuine conversation (as opposed to passive aggressive bullying), please feel free to contact me directly. If you're in the Vancouver area, I would be more than happy to either meet up over a drink, and/or introduce you to some of the Evil Skeptics if you're interested.
Meanwhile, I leave you in the hands of your overseer, Mr. Emmanuel, to evaluate your value to your profession.
Brian
-
Permalink Reply by Jenny Lancey-Flammia on
-
wow....I can understand people having different beliefs but what I cant grasp is why people become so angry over it.
Honestly, I am an energy worker very into mother earth and father spirit, I understand that others have a different belief than I, about that, but it would never anger me. Why does it anger you so. We are all entitled to our own beliefs this is why we have what is called free will. No one said you had to agree. And what harm does it do to you?
I am not saying I will never use medical care for my family, but natural methods have proven to support my children’s health far better than any other, shot pill or inhaler.
Some have such strong beliefs in their path they have chosen, they do not wish to use the medicines that are chemically produced because they are in the long run (in their belief) more harmful and if a person (old or young) passes, this is their sprit separating from the physical body, if this is not something you agree with that is fine but it also should not anger you.
I am not saying I would not do all in my means natural and medicinal to care for my children but that is my decision and it is not up to me to make another feel or believe as I do it is up to each and every individual to find the path that is right for them.
-
-
Hi Jenny.
That's a reasonably common question, but it's based on a misconception: that we're angry merely because people have different beliefs.
There's a wide variety of beliefs within the 'skeptical community' (which is somewhat of a misnomer, but however...). Many are liberal with their views, many are right-wing. A lot are quite libertarian. Some of those views are extremely incompatible with others, but we're not angry with each other, because it's not that a mere diversity of views make us angry.
It's about fraud. Lies. Deceit. And harm. I've written a fairly long exposition on this kind of stuff on my own site (http://www.brilyn.net/2010/03/on-epistemology/). I'm going to summarize some of the main points from there so if you want more detail, feel free to take a look.
So let's talk about Reiki (what I'm saying here covers all energy healing, I'm just focusing on Reiki as there's a large body of literature on it). Reiki doesn't work. It has zero effect.
Now the standard response to that sort of statement is "but it works for me!".
So here we have to be careful with our thinking: what does "works" mean?
Typically, when a process "works" we mean that the process achieves the end goal to which we applied it towards. Three examples of that would be turning the key in the ignition of a car, a medical drug, and Reiki.
When we turn the key in the ignition, and the car starts, then the car "works". If, however, we had to turn the key four or five times, we'd be pretty reluctant to say that the car "works". We'd complain about, and bring it in for a service because it's clearly not working. Additionally, we don't blame the driver and claim that they're not turning the key correctly: the problem is with the car.
Medical drugs are a slightly more complex example, as all biological processes are. Let's focus on antibiotics (pain is a whole different ball of 'complicated' that I want to steer clear of). Antibiotics are, essentially, a poison to certain bacteria. Some antibiotics are broad-spectrum (that is that they affect a wide variety of bacteria), but some are very specific to certain bacteria. But when a new pill is going to be introduced to the market, we're not too concerned with how well they kill bacteria in a lab, we're far more concerned about whether or not people who take the drug get better. Note: not mere feel better, but actually get better.
Because biological processes are so complex, and there are many variables that can be at play (i.e. the illness can merely run it's course, there could be spontaneous remission; stress can inhibit the immune system, so relaxing can help recovery), several tests have been used that help eliminate variables. So merely giving someone a pill and watching them recover isn't sufficient evidence to claim that the pill caused it. For all you know, that person's illness had merely run it's course right at that juncture of time.
Large trials are setup (some would argue that Double Blind, Randomly Controlled Trials are the gold standard of testing for efficacy, and I would tend to agree depending on what is being tested). Let's say we have two groups of 100 people. The first group gets the new medicine, and the second group gets sugar pills (neither they, nor the administering doctor, know which patient is in which group): if after the end of the trial roughly the same amount of people get better in both groups (lets say 15 in one group and 10 in the other), then we can say that the new medicine is no more effective than the sugar pills. Which is to say that "the new medicine doesn't work".
These kinds of trials have been done for Reiki, and the results are of the "no more effective than" kind: Reiki doesn't work. One particular trial had Reiki practitioners working on one group of patients, and people who were trained in random hand movements (but told it was Reiki) working on a second group of patients: the recovery rate for both groups was the same. This is to say that Reiki is no more effective than random hand movements. (all the patients were 'naive' to Reiki, that is that they had never experienced a Reiki treatment before).
Reiki (and other energy-healing nonsense) doesn't work.
Now of course, in the face of that you can just simply insist that it does, and now we've moved into the area where you have a "right to believe" any kind of nonsense that you like. That, of course, doesn't make me angry at all. It's frustrating when talking to people like this, however. If you don't understand why, try to imagine for a moment that someone has just told you that "2+2=5", and is quite insistent that they're not wrong. That, in fact, it's ok for them to believe this because they have a "right to believe" whatever they want.
And they're be correct to say that "believing that '2+2=5' isn't harmful": it doesn't directly harm them. But they will make choices based off of that fundamental misunderstanding of reality, and *those* choices may harm them.
But where I get angry is when those people set up a Reiki (or whatever) practice, and insist on charging money (usually in the guise of a donation) for their "service". Now they are committing fraud. They will tell the people who see them that Reiki works. In a mock serious voice they will tell their attendees to only use it to 'complement' their health practices, when really everyone is on the same page in poo-pooing The Medical Establishment as being ignorant of the 'natural' way to get better. This is fraud, nothing less.
"this is their sprit separating from the physical body"
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. I can appreciate that you believe this, but you have no basis to believe this. It's nothing but wishful thinking.
"every individual to find the path that is right for them."
We tried that for a few hundred thousand years. The average life-expectancy of a human for everything but the last 100 years has been roughly 30.
Now that we've stopped that nonsense, and realised that ordered, organised and shared research is far more effective, the average life expectancy of people around the world is typically around 70 years.
You'll notice that people in starving communities aren't clamouring for Reiki, or homeopathy. When there's an earthquake, people don't seek out the energy-healing en masse: they go to a doctor. All the other stuff is for the 'worried well': people who aren't sick, but have sufficient disposable income to fritter away on nonsense.
As for "And what harm does it do to you?"
Here's a list of 100,018 people who were harmed by energy medicine: http://whatstheharm.net/energymedicine.html
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Cohen on
-
I suggest you visit a Medical Qi Gong Hospital in China. They have many studies on the effect of Qi Gong on disease especially cancer. check out the case studies and then let's discuss the effect of traditional energy work.
As for DC, just too cultish for my taste.
Brian Lynchehaun said:"This is a discussion and you are entitled to your beliefs, but coming to a massage and bodywork website and telling people that touch therapy doesn’t work.. hey, don’t you see anything wrong with that?"
No, I don't.
To clarify, as 'touch therapy' is a bit ambiguous: I'm specifically referring to Therapeutic Touch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch), Reiki, or any kind of laying on of hands, as opposed to anything that works muscle groups.
Opinions are fine. Where opinions conflict with facts, opinions need to change. If they don't, you're in quack-central. There are an abundance of studies demonstrating that the above listed things don't work. TT was disproven by an 11yo child (Emily Ross).
On the topic as 'science as validation': you're referring to something known as Scientific Positivism. This largely fell out of favour 50 years ago. To claim that science is bad because it 'merely' validates theories, and that it 'should' be used for discovery implies a gross misunderstanding of both Science (the day to day work) and Philosophy of Science (the frameworks within the day to day work takes place).
"just when we thought we had things counted there"
Who is this 'we' you are referring to? A much repeated citation in skeptic circles, typically to people who are rather ignorant of science, is: if science thought it was done, it would stop. By definition.
"People are smarter than skeptics think."
Really? You mean that intelligence distribution across a population doesn't follow a bell curve?
You seem to be in the habit of telling me what I think, without knowing a damn thing about me. Yet you have the gall to call others 'elitist and arrogant'.
For the record, there was no 'post' on "the skeptic website", there was what's called a 'pingback', which is an autogenerated link many websites use to notify the owner that their post has been referenced on a different website.
As much fun as paranoia and conspiracy theories are, I'm tired of your passive aggressive tone ("I find it fascinating that") and general condescension ("And I am still looking for evidence that what you do creates value for our profession"), so I'm outta here.
If anyone who has read these posts is interested in a genuine conversation (as opposed to passive aggressive bullying), please feel free to contact me directly. If you're in the Vancouver area, I would be more than happy to either meet up over a drink, and/or introduce you to some of the Evil Skeptics if you're interested.
Meanwhile, I leave you in the hands of your overseer, Mr. Emmanuel, to evaluate your value to your profession.
Brian
-
-
"They have many studies on the effect of Qi Gong on disease especially cancer."
That's very interesting. I would be extremely interested in reading some of the studies that you found convincing.
Could you please post the names of some of the studies that you read and found compelling?
-
-
Brian, welcome back. I have the feeling you will be with us for a while, who knows, it may be a good thing.
Jenny's response had to do with the anger, as did my initial response (dynamic of conflict). You didn't deny the anger, you said it's not about the diversity, it's about fraud, lies, deceipt....
You said "But where I get angry is when those people set up a Reiki (or whatever) practice, and insist on charging money (usually in the guise of a donation) for their "service". Now they are committing fraud. "
I am sure you have seen the report "Death By Medicine", which showed that there are nearly 800,000 iatrogenic (caused by the medical profession) deaths in a single year, more than heart-attack related deaths and more than cancer-related deaths. If we are going to talk about deaths, we should also talk about those. According to that report "the medical profession is the leading cause of death in the U.S.". Not to mention antibiotics that were unnecessarily prescribed for viral infections, misdiagnoses, unnecessary medical and surgical procedures (7.5 million in a year!) These deaths were not listed on "whatstheharm.net". Should there be a category titled "these people trusted conventional medicine and died because of it"? Personally, I don't think so. Should doctors be accused of fraud? I don't think so.
I am not going to knock conventional medicine. Sure it may be a leading cause of deaths, but it has its place. I also believe that alternative medicine has its place. (I understand that you disagree on the latter, unless alternative medicine works on muscles, you said)
You said in a previous post to me "You seem to be in the habit of telling me what I think, without knowing a damn thing about me. Yet you have the gall to call others 'elitist and arrogant'." Amazing what I was able to draw from your post, isn't it. True though, there was a lot I didn't know. Now I know that it's not only alternative medicine that you dislike ("“if you believe that it’s ok to sell alt-med services without some sort of concerted effort to determine if the actually work or not, then you are a moron”) but it's kinda cool to know you also hate clothes designers, annoying lying professors, school, your roommate, christianity, etc. Dude, that's not good.. I was not far off when I suggested a massage, I will even go as far as paying for a session for you up to $100 (just email me the receipt).
Why is the anger important? Because it takes away from the credibility of your arguments. Sure you can bring up "ad hominem" fallacy - I knock the message because of the traits of the messenger.. I think the anger can cause all kinds of biases - anchoring effect bias (looking at only energy medicine deaths), attentional bias (ignoring many other reasons for the increase in life span), positive outcome bias, etc. Just go down the list of cognitive biases and tell me that someone who is already p'od about the world will not be subject to some of those.
Twenty-five years ago I would stay up to watch James Randi debunk myths on the Tonight Show. I loved it. It was the highlight of my day. Now, skepticism is vulgar and in the form of cheap shots (such as Penn and Teller's Bulls**t) or people calling others "morons" just because they believe there is a spirit, a 'qi', or 'life force'. Give me a break!
There is a considerable movement toward research in the massage and bodywork field. There are still things we need to figure out, but we will. Many massage therapists and bodyworkers are career changers who come from other disciplines. We have bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, doctorate degrees, corporate backgrounds, you name it. We are not naive about life, choices, or science.
So, no wonder many of us take exception when someone treats us like we cannot think for ourselves, bullies us, writes about us in a condescending tone, etc. We have made our choice to pursue massage therapy (or other bodywork) for many different reasons, and quite often the reason is to offer a much needed complement to the medical profession by bringing touch and care to a hurt world.
Science is not the same as being a skeptic, and being a skeptic does not mean that you resort to bashing others. There are more than one ways to look at the world. The statement “2+2=5” would be perfectly valid in a positional decimal system that looks like this: 0,1,2,3,5,4,6,7,8,9. Many of the disagreements that come up do come up because we are comparing apples and oranges. One side uses Newtonian approaches (take it apart and see what's in it) while others are suggesting whole-systems approaches (put everything together and see what it'll do). Some people are viewing the world based on the existing laws of mechanics and thermodynamics, while others are coming up with new perspectives that would include the development of new laws of physics (I think it's possible). So, does it make sense to fight and cuss each other? Life is short (even if life expectancy has grown).
I could write a lot more but I don't see the point any longer. I will leave you with a clip that I know you like.
-
-
"Death By Medicine"
This is a fairly standard Red Herring Fallacy: bringing in something irrelevant in order to distract from the point at hand.
If you were interested in actually making a reasonable comparison, it would quickly leap to your attention that what matters is *both* the number of lives saved *and* ended, not merely ended.
Medicine scores high numbers on the former, and some on the latter. Furthermore, the question must be asked "if there was no intervention, would the casualty list be higher": and the answer is yes.
Alternative nonsense scores 0 on the 'saved' column, and high on the 'ended' column. You can only claim a 'save' if the treatment is demonstrated to work. By definition, alternative treatments are either not proven to work, or proven to not work as Tim Minchin puts it.
"I am not going to knock conventional medicine."
You just did. As part of the whole Red Herring move, you commented on a negative aspect of medicine (the "conventional" is superflous, and is part of the Loaded Terms Fallacy), and just left it hanging. This is a standard rhetorical device by which an author knocks something through implication. Please don't play these ridiculous games.
"I also believe that alternative medicine has its place. (I understand that you disagree on the latter, unless alternative medicine works on muscles, you said)"
Yes, I disagree. However, I'm entirely open to changing my position: show me the evidence.
Not anecdotes. Not stories. Not thought experiments.
Evidence.
Anyone with an open mind, and a vague notion of how evidence works, upon scanning the pubmed database will notice that all the studies they can find that demonstrate efficacy of some alternative nonsense are fatally flawed (i.e. the sample size is tiny, or there's no control, or there's no blinding, etc).
Here's all I ask:
Show me one good study of an alternative treatment, and the replication of that study, and I'll be convinced that there's something to that particular treatment.
It's that simple.
I don't have an ideological commitment to 'this hippy stuff is crap'. I have an ideological commitment to 'charging money for something without evidence that it works is fraud, therefore wrong'. Get me evidence, and [whatever] is off my radar.
"Because it takes away from the credibility of your arguments"
Only to those who judge an argument based on the attitude of the arguer. To people actually interested in the truth, passion doesn't diminish the argument.
"I think the anger can cause all kinds of biases"
And here's the full extent of the Ad Hominem played out in full, in all it's vacuous glory.
Of course anger can (and does) cause all kinds of biases.
That it can cause a bias doesn't mean that it did cause a bias.
Saying to someone that "well... your argument *could* be wrong, therefore I'm not going to actually go to the trouble of examining it" is an excuse, and a rationalisation.
Show the bias. Show me the 'benefits' of Alternative stuff that I'm missing. Show me a plausible alternative reasoning for the extension of life over the last 100 years that isn't "medicine and science did the job that we wanted them to do".
Rather than playing a churlish smoke and mirrors game: state your facts. Demonstrate the error that I've made. Show me the actual error that a bias has caused, rather than merely intimating that I may be biased.
I mean, if that's a valid argument, then it's entirely valid for me to say to you "sure, but your financial income is dependent upon your continued belief in this alternative nonsense, therefore you could have a bias in favour of the nonsense, therefore I don't have to listen to anything that you have to say on the topic, because you could be biased".
And that is crap. It's unconvincing, it's irrational, it's an Ad Hominem, it's empirically ignorant, and it's just wrong.
The post-modernist position is self-refuting. People who have degrees that demonstrate that they are not thinking, are still not thinking. Be offended all you like: a series of non sequiturs does not an argument make.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
