Energy healing: an investigation into

[PsychicRx]

Energy Healing: An Investigation into the New Medicine

There is a lot of buzz going on around the topic of energy healing. There are two schools of thoughts on the subject – one which believes that it is highly effective, and the other that doesn’t even recognize it as a plausible medical option. I, myself, am the kind of person, who doesn’t believe anything unless there is solid scientific evidence behind the claims. Therefore, I took upon myself to verify the claims made by the energy healers to see whether it is genuinely useful, or just a pseudoscience. Here, I have made an attempt to put forth before you the results of my research into energy healing.

What is Energy?

Energy Healers claim that everything is made of energy and it is all pervasive. Energy exists in the objects around us, the air surrounding us, and even in our own body. I have a science background and I can ascertain to the fact that this is not something made up. It is common knowledge in the scientific community that everything in the universe exists in two forms – matter and energy (wave). In 1924, the French physicist Louis de Broglie, showed conclusive proof that both matter and wave are two faces of the same coin. This came to be known as the dual nature of matter. Everything from electrons to chairs to living things, exhibit this duality. Thus, the human body is part of this energy wave that encompasses the entirety of the universe.

How Does Energy Heal?

Our body is not only exposed to this all-encompassing energy, but also generates its own. Moreover, all our minds have some level of control on this energy and are perfectly capable of healing our very own body. But, our inability to connect with this energy has led us to a point where we no longer are able to control it. Energy healers claim that they are able to control this energy – the energy within them, the energy around them, and the energy that the patient is producing. By channeling this energy in the particular direction of maladies, they are able to heal the wounds, and cure the diseases in people.

Historically, many cultures have propagated this belief. The ancient Romans believed in the principle – “mens agitat molem” – which translates to “mind moves matter”. Many similar accounts can be found in various cultures across the world. As far as the modern medicine is concerned, there are a range of medical devices and procedures that make use of energy in various forms to cure diseases. Some of them are radiation therapy, heliotherapy, ultrasound, and more. Energy is used by doctors in almost all hospitals to treat patients of one disease or the other. At this point, I am pretty convinced that the science behind energy healing is solid. However, I did not find any evidence in support of whether or not the healers are able to control this energy.

Whether Healers are Able to Control Energy?

Although I could not find any evidence or scientific explanation as to how energy healers control this all-pervading energy, I decided to look for other means of ascertaining the truth behind the claims. I accepted the fact that just because we are not able to explain something right now, doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible. There is a very real possibility that more research and new scientific concepts might explain the phenomenon. So the real question is – is there any proof that energy healers can actually heal the patients? In 2000, researchers from the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the University of Exeter conducted a study (http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=713514), in which they observed that more than half the patients were cured by energy healers. This goes a long way in proving the efficacy of energy healers.

Conclusion

After my extensive research, I believe that the prevailing scientific understanding of the field of energy healing is primitive, and there is a need for more research into this field. However, whatever I have found so far indicates that energy healing does show promising results. I, personally, would not mind giving it a try myself.

[John from Lowell]

Those who do energy healing understand that free choice is involved with this process. The belief that the energy in consciousness can Do Something must be present. Over time science will notice that the power of perception on such matter will determine results. Yes indeed more research is needed for this.

John

[PsychicRx]

Thanks John I believe so as well. It's a shame there isn't much credible, quality, scientific research on the subject as of yet or maybe this is a mind over matter thing idk but I do know it works. Thanks for reading

[Emma_Acid]

Energy Healing: An Investigation into the New Medicine

There is a lot of buzz going on around the topic of energy healing. There are two schools of thoughts on the subject – one which believes that it is highly effective, and the other that doesn't even recognize it as a plausible medical option.

That's because it isn't a plausible medical option - because your definition of "energy" is totally wrong.

I, myself, am the kind of person, who doesn't believe anything unless there is solid scientific evidence behind the claims.

Great.

Therefore, I took upon myself to verify the claims made by the energy healers to see whether it is genuinely useful, or just a pseudoscience.

Before you do that, why don't you do a proper definition of what we're actually talking about here?

"Energy" is not a noun. It is not a "thing". It does not hover there like a ball of glowing light. It does not waft around like a gas. It is not passed from person to person as if they were in an X Men movie.

Energy is the description of a system's ability to perform work. That is it.

With that in mind, let's continue.

What is Energy?

Energy Healers claim that everything is made of energy and it is all pervasive. Energy exists in the objects around us, the air surrounding us, and even in our own body. I have a science background and I can ascertain to the fact that this is not something made up.

I'm afraid it is totally made up. You're confusing "energy" with "the Force".

Energy exists in different states, and is transferred from state to state. It is not wafting around like like a mystical force field.

It is common knowledge in the scientific community that everything in the universe exists in two forms – matter and energy (wave). In 1924, the French physicist Louis de Broglie, showed conclusive proof that both matter and wave are two faces of the same coin. This came to be known as the dual nature of matter. Everything from electrons to chairs to living things, exhibit this duality. Thus, the human body is part of this energy wave that encompasses the entirety of the universe.

This is a bit of a word salad, and contains quite a few errors.

Matter can be converted into energy - as E=mc2 showed the world. They aren't separate things.

This is where your confusion creeps in. Energy is not categorized as "wave" vs "matter". You're confusing matter/energy with wave-particle duality. Sub atomic particles behave as both waves and particles, depending how they are measured. It is not a duality between "matter and energy".

Again - there is no "energy wave" that encompasses the universe. The universe is made of energy - but this isn't what you're claiming.

Our body is not only exposed to this all-encompassing energy, but also generates its own. Moreover, all our minds have some level of control on this energy and are perfectly capable of healing our very own body.

While there is limited evidence in the brain's ability to help physical healing, this is nothing to do with "energy".

Energy healers claim that they are able to control this energy – the energy within them, the energy around them, and the energy that the patient is producing. By channeling this energy in the particular direction of maladies, they are able to heal the wounds, and cure the diseases in people.

As I've shown, you have your definition of energy wrong, so this is meaningless.

Historically, many cultures have propagated this belief. The ancient Romans believed in the principle – "mens agitat molem" – which translates to "mind moves matter". Many similar accounts can be found in various cultures across the world.

And none have any testable evidence to show that "energy" heals people. This is called an 'appeal to the ancients', and is a logical fallacy.

As far as the modern medicine is concerned, there are a range of medical devices and procedures that make use of energy in various forms to cure diseases. Some of them are radiation therapy, heliotherapy, ultrasound, and more. Energy is used by doctors in almost all hospitals to treat patients of one disease or the other.

Firstly, saying doctors "use energy" to heal when using radiotherapy is meaningless - we use energy for everything. I stored up on energy this morning eating my breakfast. I wasn't using it as a mystical force - I was transferring the energy locked in a slice of toast into thermal energy, kinetic energy etc.

At this point, I am pretty convinced that the science behind energy healing is solid. However, I did not find any evidence in support of whether or not the healers are able to control this energy.

You're switching definitions to suit what ever you're saying at that point. Plus - your standard of evidence is utterly flimsy. Radiotherapy is not what "energy healers" are talking about when they say they heal people with energy.

You're not looking at this with any standard of critical thinking.

Whether Healers are Able to Control Energy?

Although I could not find any evidence or scientific explanation as to how energy healers control this all-pervading energy, I decided to look for other means of ascertaining the truth behind the claims. I accepted the fact that just because we are not able to explain something right now, doesn't mean that it isn't possible. There is a very real possibility that more research and new scientific concepts might explain the phenomenon. So the real question is – is there any proof that energy healers can actually heal the patients? In 2000, researchers from the University of Maryland School of Medicine, and the University of Exeter conducted a study (http://annals.org/ar...rticleid=713514), in which they observed that more than half the patients were cured by energy healers. This goes a long way in proving the efficacy of energy healers.

No, this is not what they concluded. They said that out of 23 trials involving over 2,700 patients (a mix of prayer, "non contact" touch, and other forms of so called "healing"), 13 showed "positive results" that warranted more research.

This is not the same as 13 trials showing that energy healers cured people. Not the same ballpark, not even in the same universe as that conclusion.

Also - the researchers did not observe anything. This was a meta-analysis - a compilation of available literature.

Something that has to be taken in to account is that these would not have been life-threatening conditions. You cannot do such an experiment on a group of people with cancer (ie, some research radiotherapy, some receive prayer, some receive placebo). This would be immoral.

Doing these experiments on people with non-life threatening conditions raises the issue that the conditions may well have cleared up on their own.

If you truly had a scientific background you'd know that correlation does not equal causation.

Conclusion

After my extensive research, I believe that the prevailing scientific understanding of the field of energy healing is primitive, and there is a need for more research into this field.

"Extensive" research? Did I miss that bit?

I, personally, would not mind giving it a try myself.

Without a doubt, this is scientifically the worst thing you can do. "Self testing" or accepting anecdotal evidence is exactly the reason a lot of these pseudo sciences exist in the first place.

And that's all this is - a pseudo science.

Edited January 20, 2016 by Emma_Acid

[felix1914]

I do energy heeling if anyone is interested

[PsychicRx]

Sorry for the late reply which I'll probably do in two or three instalments as school has been crazy last few weeks. I appreciate the critique @emma_acid. I threw a few of these papers together as a side hobby and they probably could have had a proof-read however this is better (for my purposes) as it invites lovey debate.

First off here's a definitive definition of "energy

.

1. The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.

"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"

synonyms: vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, verve, enthusiasm, zest, vibrancy, spark, sparkle, effervescence, ebullience, exuberance, buoyancy, sprightliness; More

2.

power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.

You referenced "energy" in what appears to be a physics context, which is fine and appropriate and maybe where some of the confusion came to be but NOT necessarily what I meant. so just to be clear my definition of "energy healing" is ...

Full or partial Healing of humans ailments either physical, psychological, spiritual, or any other, facilitated by an as yet unknown or misunderstood mechanisn, force, set of conditions, actions, or any combination thereof through which strength, vitality, or duration required for sustained physical or mental activity is achieved, altered, or enhanced.

Thus "energy healing" differs primarily from conventional western medicine on (2) points

1. Unknown mechanism of action for the energy transfer.

2. The healing typically involves intangibles such as faith, love, intent, hope, or other is believed to either taken or given from other people, nature, a higher power (or God), rocks or crystals. Etc.

Things I believe make life worth living.

if a man holds his finger over an open flame The energy transfer is quite obvious the heat transferred from the flame and caused a burn on his finger quite easy to quantify. Put burn ointment on said burn it typically heals faster which again is easy to quantify.

However whats intrigued me since I was a child is why do people who pray, use crystals, enlist healers etc etc have a consistently higher rate of survival and faster recovery time for the exact same ailments (any) with the exact treatments when weighed against people who don't try this "pseudo-science" "quackery"

I may have confused "energy" with "the force" but I'd refer you to the documentary "Harry potter" and encourage you to believe in magic you muggle.

So disclaimer here guys *i am not a physicist* and probably don't have the best understanding of how the universe works but I'll attempt to dive into that next post.

Cheers

[Carl G.]

Experience is worth more than endless futile theoretical arguments. Some years ago, in the midst of a physical breakdown caused by years of stress, my wife tried to get me to try healing done by a group who worked once a week at the local village hall. I was somewhat dubious and did nothing, but she went ahead and booked me an appointment anyway. This is what happened. The healers (about 7 or 8 most weeks) worked in a large room. Patients and friends, before and after treatment, were sitting around the periphery of the room. Each session, accompanied by relaxing "New Age" type music, began with brief conversations between healer and patient describing the latter's problems before the healing began. In general the patient was seated and the healer stood nearby. Some employed a degree of touch, but most simply held their hands an inch or so over the affected parts of the patients' bodies. After maybe 15 or 20 minutes, the session ended with a kind of debriefing, in which the healer described what he or she had sensed, and the patients what effects (in any) they had experienced.

I had, of course, heard that patients typically sensed an energy of some kind, usually warmth, so I was wondering, rather doubtfully, whether I would feel anything at all. In the event what I felt was rather unequivocal -- imagine opening the oven door and feeling a blast of hot air coming up at you. It was like that. So I was impressed, but my major problems, at that time a chronic eye problem and a very painful lower back, did not immediately go .My back felt a lot better, which was great, but most obvious was an influx of energy, something I was lacking in, which lasted the best part of a week before fading. Then I would go in for a top-up of energy -- that was how it seemed to me.

After a couple of months, I went in and found that my regular healer was absent, and I was assigned a different one, a lady with very serious expression and a rather butch cropped hairstyle. I explained my problem, she said she'd see what she could do, I closed my eyes and relaxed. Right away she began massaging my shoulders, so I knew she was a "toucher." Then after a while I felt an extraordinarily powerful sensation of heat on my lower back, after which she bega n massaging it. I could feel her fingers and thumbs pushing in really hard and the bones being manipulated. I remember thinking, "My God, this girl's strong!" It felt great, and at the end when the debriefing went on, I told her how amazing the feeling of heat had been just before she began massaging my back. She looked blankly back, and I repeated this. Eventually she said, "Someone else must have been touching your back." I thought this was a ridiculous thing to say -- with so many people sitting around, nobody could go up and give someone a massage without everyone, never mind she herself, seeing it.

I went back to my chair and cup of tea. As I sat there puzzling I noticed something that, for once in my life, gave me a cold chill. I had been assuming that the plastic chairs in the hall were of the sort with a separate back rest and seat. But these were moulded in a continuous curve. There was no way anyone could touch a seated person's back, never mind give them a massage! And believe it or not, that experience marked the beginning of a genuine and (thank God) lasting improvement in my back. It is still something I have to look after, but it is no longer the serious issue that it was.

I went on to have numerous similar, but less dramatic, experiences with other healers, and gradually clues have emerged that I think are worthy of further investigation. For one thing, the "energy" that is involved is identical with the Chinese concept of Chi or Qi. I am not a physicist, so I won't argue over whether it is physically an energy, or something more subtle; but evidence is also increasing that it is also identical to the "earth energy" detected by dowsers; and thanks to the work of astronomer Vincent Reddish, we now know that this is essentially identical to torsion waves. If you check online you will find a lot of controversial work by Russian researchers that should give you pointers on where to carry your own research. I hope that you carry on and ignore the critics -- if you do get results nobody will care whether anybody rubbished your ideas. If you don't -- well, you can only do your best. I wish you luck!

Edited February 17, 2016 by Carl G.

[Daffy123]

I once got a demo reiki treatment where it felt suddenly like some sort of weird force was being sucked through my upper back.... I had no idea she had just started and was supposed to be clearing my mind and relaxing for a few minutes so when I felt that it freaked me out and I jolted up, looked around and there she was right there...

And then I felt nothing for the rest of the session.

Lol..

One of those things that I don't think too much about but still leaves me a tiny bit curious.

I still think the best form of energy healing is calories. In form of chocolate.

[Emma_Acid]

Sorry for the late reply which I'll probably do in two or three instalments as school has been crazy last few weeks.

No worries, pretty busy myself.

First off here's a definitive definition of "energy

.

1. The strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.

"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"

synonyms: vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit, spiritedness, verve, enthusiasm, zest, vibrancy, spark, sparkle, effervescence, ebullience, exuberance, buoyancy, sprightliness; More

2.

power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.

You referenced "energy" in what appears to be a physics context, which is fine and appropriate and maybe where some of the confusion came to be but NOT necessarily what I meant. so just to be clear my definition of "energy healing" is ...

Full or partial Healing of humans ailments either physical, psychological, spiritual, or any other, facilitated by an as yet unknown or misunderstood mechanisn, force, set of conditions, actions, or any combination thereof through which strength, vitality, or duration required for sustained physical or mental activity is achieved, altered, or enhanced.

OK, but that isn't "energy". What you're basically talking about is the placebo effect.

Also, you're giving "energy healers" far too much credit, and what they claim to do is heal using physical energy - they almost always misunderstand what it means.

Thus "energy healing" differs primarily from conventional western medicine on (2) points

Got to nip this in the bud right here. Medicine is medicine. What is used is generally what works. If alternative medicine worked, it wouldn't be called alternative medicine. It would be called medicine.

1. Unknown mechanism of action for the energy transfer.

There you go again. You're using the language of science, and then claiming not to have to be bound by known scientific laws as it's just "spiritual energy".

Well, in that case, instead of arguing about energy healing, you need to prove that this spiritual energy exists.

2. The healing typically involves intangibles such as faith, love, intent, hope, or other is believed to either taken or given from other people, nature, a higher power (or God), rocks or crystals. Etc.

Things I believe make life worth living.

So, it's essentially standard therapy then (once you've dropped the "rocks and crystals" nonsense)

if a man holds his finger over an open flame The energy transfer is quite obvious the heat transferred from the flame and caused a burn on his finger quite easy to quantify. Put burn ointment on said burn it typically heals faster which again is easy to quantify.

However whats intrigued me since I was a child is why do people who pray, use crystals, enlist healers etc etc have a consistently higher rate of survival and faster recovery time for the exact same ailments (any) with the exact treatments when weighed against people who don't try this "pseudo-science" "quackery"

Please can you reference this?

I may have confused "energy" with "the force" but I'd refer you to the documentary "Harry potter" and encourage you to believe in magic you muggle.

So disclaimer here guys *i am not a physicist* and probably don't have the best understanding of how the universe works but I'll attempt to dive into that next post.

Cheers

You don't have to be a physicist, but it is obvious you don't have a great grasp on what makes valid science and what doesn't.

Speaking of which...

Experience is worth more than endless futile theoretical arguments

No no no no no.

Anecdotal evidence is utterly worthless in the scientific method.

I could claim that I had indigestion, saw two crows out of the window, and that when the indigestion cleared up, it was the crows that did it.

For those that aren't that savvy with the scientific method, take note:

Correlation does not equal causation.

Secondly - anecdotal evidence is entirely worthless and it does nothing to work out the actual mechanism for change. You cannot test, repeat and measure someone's anecdote. It's literally useless.

[Carl G.]

We are not going to agree about that. On the contrary, all science has to begin somewhere, and anecdotal evidence is the starting point. Unless you accept, at least provisionally, people's observations, flawed as they may be, you will never get beyond square one. Once you have established that something is happening, you can start looking for patterns, and gradually edge towards developing hypotheses about mechanism. You are looking for a level of organisation that does not yet exist, and applying rules and criteria that only function at a later stage of scientific development. You need to look more into the history of science.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Carl G.

[XenoFish]

It's all just a placebo effect.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31481

[Emma_Acid]

We are not going to agree about that. On the contrary, all science has to begin somewhere, and anecdotal evidence is the starting point.

No it isn't. The scientific method does not always start with anecdotal evidence.

Aside from this, you're just special pleading - as if psychic phenomena has been immune to scientific inquiry. This stuff has been studied. Intensively, and very rigorously. And if it worked, we would know it by now.

Someone just saying "it works because I know it works" doesn't cut the mustard in 21st century science. We don't live in the stone age any more.

[Carl G.]

You are someone who enjoys debating, and feeling that you are winning arguments -- not someone who wants to find the truth. "Special pleading" is a legalistic/debating term, and doesn't mean anything. Some aspects of "psychic phenomena" have been studied intensely, the most recent being remote viewing, and the levels of statistical significance are very impressive. Energy healing, which is what I thought was what we are discussing, has sometimes been studied, the most interesting results coming from (I think) an investigation of Matthew Manning.

I don't recall saying "it work because I know it works." I described my own experiences, not concerned with cutting mustard. All I can say is that it worked in my case. And that I have identified some possible causative mechanisms.

I am puzzled why someone like yourself who basically rejects everything outside your comfort zone should interest yourself in "Unexplained Mysteries."

[Emma_Acid]

You are someone who enjoys debating, and feeling that you are winning arguments -- not someone who wants to find the truth

Absolutely nothing to do with the argument in hand, but I'll humour you.

I'm arguing this for two reasons. Firstly, the OP said that he was trying to verify claims that energy healing was effective. I was pointing out that his premise and argument were both flawed.

Secondly, talking bulls*** is not a victimless crime. All extremes need a middle ground, and the extremes of people refusing valid cancer care in favour of snake oil is fuelled by the middle ground of people curing backaches with energy healing.

"Special pleading" is a legalistic/debating term, and doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does. It is a form of logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are impossible to argue against, and therefore don't constitute legitimate arguments.

Saying that personal experience trumps any theoretical science is a logical fallacy.

Some aspects of "psychic phenomena" have been studied intensely, the most recent being remote viewing, and the levels of statistical significance are very impressive.

Please cite this, and show me where in the studies it states this.

Energy healing, which is what I thought was what we are discussing, has sometimes been studied, the most interesting results coming from (I think) an investigation of Matthew Manning.

Please cite this, and show me where in the studies it states this.

I don't recall saying "it work because I know it works."

You said that scientific enquiry into the subject wasn't needed, because you had a story about how it helped you.

I described my own experiences, not concerned with cutting mustard.

And we're talking about how you scientifically verify energy healing. As I've said, anecdotal evidence on its own is useless in science.

All I can say is that it worked in my case.

You cannot say that it was the energy healing that helped you, as this does not constitute a scientific study. Anecdotal evidence on its own is useless.

And that I have identified some possible causative mechanisms.

No you didn't, you linked it to dowsing, a thoroughly debunked pseudo science.

I am puzzled why someone like yourself who basically rejects everything outside your comfort zone should interest yourself in "Unexplained Mysteries."

It is nothing to do with my "comfort zone" - it is to do with what is scientifically valid and therefore useful to the progress of society. Also, as I said - this middle ground allows extremism, and as a responsible member of society, I do care whether or not vulnerable people are convinced to give up valid treatments for invalid, stone age "cures".

All psychic phenomena - energy healing, dowsing, remote viewing, palm reading, etc etc - has been researched and none has ever found to be valid. Were it ever found to be valid, it would change the world and universe as we know it. It would be an entirely new type of science, and would revolutionise technology.

However if it wasn't valid, you'd get people charging £50 to wave their hands over your back and then claim a victory when the placebo effect kicks in.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Emma_Acid

[ChrLzs]

Carl G., as you can probably see from the 'likes', Emma speaks for more than just herself here, and she is 100% right.

In simple terms:

1. Anecdotes (and studies based on them and/or subjective judgments) are essentially worthless, except as a starting point to justify proper research.

2. Meta-analysis needs to be done very carefully, and ALL of the studies being dragged in need to be carefully vetted - if they are not published by a respected, peer-reviewed, organisation.. you'll get suckered.

3. The mind is a powerful thing, and yes, faith in something can sometimes be enough to make that something work, or help in some way. But that is quite different to the something actually being the cause of the success. Plus people (obviously..) want to believe they are getting better, and will often misreport, especially if they know they are being surveyed on the efficacy of something 'special'. If you are serious about this stuff, you MUST be working from proper medical records and statistics.

Drifting a little offtopic, but along a similar vein.. if you are not easily offended, take a look at "Thank You God for Fixing the Cataracts of Sam's Mum" - a music/comedy video by the brilliant Tim Minchin. Absolutely NOT suitable for work, or for those who dislike what might be termed .. 'high-level blasphemy'... (and don't blame me if it becomes an earworm..).

[Emma_Acid]

1. Anecdotes (and studies based on them and/or subjective judgments) are essentially worthless, except as a starting point to justify proper research.

And even then, this isn't a given and would only represent the very very beginning of the process.

For example; 200 people complaining of suicidal tendencies when taking anti depressants might constitute a starting point, but it is in no way evidence in and of itself. There could be many other things at play, and it certainly does not mean that you can say "we can bin all the science - if some people taking this pill experience suicidal tendencies, then this pill causes people to kill themselves". No. That isn't how science works.

2. Meta-analysis needs to be done very carefully, and ALL of the studies being dragged in need to be carefully vetted - if they are not published by a respected, peer-reviewed, organisation.. you'll get suckered.

Also, a meta-analysis is done from available literature - this is not the researcher doing their own studies. This was the mistake the OP made in his first post - they researchers didn't observe anything - they just took findings from other people's observations, which may or may not have been scientifically valid.

[Carl G.]

I can see that no amount of talk will achieve anything further in this debate, so I will finish with two comments:

1. If I ever said in any of my posts that "scientific investigation into this was not needed" please say exactly where. I strongly support scientific investigation into all phenomena -- as I trained as a psychologist myself I spent a lot of my working life designing and analysing research projects.

2. To my mind, to be a scientist means that if some perplexing phenomenon occurs one would want to investigate it -- and often that means, initially, examining the evidence of humans who are, as we all know, not the most reliable of witnesses; collecting as many data as one can, examining them for patterns, then formulating hypotheses, designing experiments to test these hypotheses, and hopefully end with the development of a fully fledged theory. This thread began with a post by PsychicRx, who openly described his interest in energy healing, detailed what he had so far found out about it, and concluded that "prevailing scientific understanding" in this area was "primitive," and so there was a need for further scientific investigation. Instead of saying, "Excellent, I totally agree; have you thought about looking at this theory, or that area of research, for ideas on how to progress this inquiry," all you have done is act like a hair-splitting, dogmatic superficialist, analysing every sentence of his post and thereby fragmenting his overall perspective. You haven't offered any constructive, helpful comments, merely acted like an obsessive member of the school debating society. Making sweeping generalisations about puzzling phenomena such as dowsing (I assume you don't accept the scientific qualifications of Vincent Reddish -- just astronomer royal of Scotland) and snide comments you are not acting like a scientist as I understand the term.

PsychicRx, take no notice of these people. If you do serious work into energy healing and make a breakthrough, nobody will remember what your critics said. At the least you will be making a genuine attempt to study the phenomenon and whatever you find will be of value someday!

[ChrLzs]

I can see that no amount of talk will achieve anything further in this debate

It could.. You (or anyone) could simply point us to a study that had definitive results, and is published by a credible peer-reviewed organisation/journal. Problem is you won't find one. Reason is that whenever PROPER standards (ie not subjective or ancecdotal claims) are applied, there is NO measurable effect. Scientists would LOVE for there to be something to this, and no-one is stopping them or you pursuing it - imagine the fame and fortune that awaits! But whenever it is tested by someone who knows what they are doing, it fails.

If I ever said in any of my posts that "scientific investigation into this was not needed" please say exactly where.

Here ya go - in this very post you want stop the conversation:

PsychicRx, take no notice of these people.

and earlier you said, obviously expecting us to simply accept your words as proof:

Experience is worth more than endless futile theoretical arguments

I fact, Emma and I and everyone here I suspect, would love you to stay and bring back some good evidence. Not anecdotes, unless they are fully supported by medical notes and a decent methodology underpinning it.

But no, you would rather flounce off in a huff, whining that we are all close minded and critical... It's the easy way out and we have seen it many times before - usually it happens about when we ask for evidence, or suggest the proper ways this type of thing could be tested..

I strongly support scientific investigation into all phenomena

Good. Then why don't you stay and offer up your very best examples of research into this area, and let's look at it in detail and discuss exactly why it isn't being accepted by the big Journals like Nature, Science, American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, The Lancet...

as I trained as a psychologist myself I spent a lot of my working life designing and analysing research projects.

Why not bring your best here? And I'd love to hear your comments in regard to subjectivity versus objectivity, as you must well know why Psychology/Psychiatry differs in some very important aspects from almost all other scientific disciplines.....

To my mind, to be a scientist means that if some perplexing phenomenon occurs one would want to investigate it

Well, yes, that's pretty obvious.

and often that means, initially, examining the evidence of humans who are, as we all know, not the most reliable of witnesses

You REALLY should have stopped there and elaborated. If you accept that anecdotal evidence is in fact generally not evidence at all, then any patterns you may see are probably more about the human psyche (how ironic..) than about reality. If your studies don't deal with this, then your meta analyses will be worse than useless - in fact deliberately misleading. And you *must* be able to recognise your own biases.

collecting as many data as one can, examining them for patterns, then formulating hypotheses, designing experiments to test these hypotheses

Can you show us what has been done in that regard, and show us any of those experiments you think were worthy, so we can look at how they were set up? Because frankly, what I have seen to date has been woefully flawed, with what appears to be deliberate complexity and subjectivity, a lack of controls, and so on.

So how about instead of criticising us for not being open-minded, why don't you bravely step up to the plate?

You haven't offered any constructive, helpful comments

Well, as a practising psychologist and one who understands the scientific method, you should know how to help him with his quest... yet I haven't seen anything from you either... So where would you suggest we start? You tell us, what is the next step.. and do you really think that next step hasn't been taken already by those who know what they are doing?

Do you really think that this stuff isn't accepted by mainstream science because Da Truth is being covered up?

I challenge you to bring what you think is the best study/evidence to date, and let's look at the *real* reason it isn't accepted..

[Carl G.]

What do I think should be done to investigate energy healing? The first step for an investigator woud be to get involved him or herself and find out what is going on at first hand, exactly as Reddish did in the case of dowsing. That means attending healing sessions, maybe becoming a patient yourself, if you have any physical problems. It also means trying different healers, because I found that different healers had different effects on me, and some had no obvious effects at all. I suspect that there is an element of compatibility between healer and patient, in the absence of which the process is negated. Listen to the healers' own accounts of what they think they are doing. Here you would need to distinguish sharply beween healing ability and what the healer says about it. Many healers have been trained in a certain system and in effect indoctrinated into a belief system. Many, for example, seem to accept New Age thinking, which you and I would agree is uncritical and sloppy. Nevertheless, they do actually show definite ability. Many feel that they are simply channels for a divine force, but my own observations suggest that they are actually using their own energies in the process, and several I have known have gone down with serious illnesses themselves.

Next you would want to study the patients. In my experience almost all the people who turn to healers do so when conventional medicine has done its best for them and can offer no further hope. This is the opposite of Miss Acid's comments about people risking their lives going to healers before asking proper medical help. Moreover, it means that in practice healers often have to work with a cross section of patients whose ailments have progressed too far for anyone to help, thereby biassing any simple comparison of healing versus conventional medicine.

You could also arrange blind tests, bringing to healers people with known medical problems, and seeing if they can detect what is wrong. I clearly recall the surprise I felt when my healer detected a shoulder pain that I hadn't thought worth mentioning to him without any apparent difficulty.

No doubt you will find some quacks and fakes in this early phase -- they would not be hard to detect.

Next you would have to observe your own bias and belief system. For example, some people have suggested that improvements may be due to the placebo effect. I don't doubt that placebo effects are present in energy healing just as they are in conventional medicine. In both cases methodology can be employed to partition out these effects. But just as belief or "faith" may have a positive effect, so might the scepticism of the investigator have a negative effect.

To my mind, the aim of a serious, long term study, would be to determine what is happening during the healing process. What is healing energy, if it exists? My first hypothesis would be that it is the same as the earth energy harnessed by dowsers, i.e. the natural torsion field of the earth, and its interaction with the solar field and geophysical features, This hypothesis woud lend itself to experiments similar to those run with Manning, e.g. seeing the effects of healing energy on plants, and conversely the effects of negative energies. This would have the advantages that (1) the subjects would be unable to influence the life form they are interacting with by verbal suggestion, visual appearance etc., so the placebo effects would be zero. (2) The ethical issues raised by questions such as giving or withholding healing to patients possibly with life threatening conditions would be bypassed. (3) The ease of obtaining plant samples of uniform characteristics would both increase the numbers of trials and make possible more sophisticated forms of analysis. So as a first experiment I would look to have maybe 6 experienced healers of known abilities, two conditions (healing versus negative effects), maybe 4 or 5 different plants judged by experts to be of identical age and characteristics, and maybe 4 replications. After a period, experts would measure and assess the health and appearance of the plant samples, maybe even do intensive biological studies of them. Control plants, not subject to healing or negative influences, would of course also be employed.

If this study confirms the results of the Manning experiment -- i.e. plants subjected to healing found to grow bigger and flourish than controls, and negatively influenced plants shown to be stunted or deficient -- then we would have strong evidence of an effect independent of placebo effects, suggestion, or expectation.

The next experiment would then attempt to replicate the results of the first using torsion wave generators in place of the healers and to test the assertion of Russian researchers that clockwise and anticlockwise waves have different effects.

If these experiments are successful, only then would we then go on to using human patients...

Ok, I have (off the top of my head) come up with a rough sketch of the kind of project that could be run.

I am still not very impressed by the arguments and assertions that you and Emma have come up with. What sort of answer is ,"Here ya go--in this very post you want to stop the conversation"? How does questioning a totally unfounded accusation by someone square with stopping a conversation? It seems to me that you are both assuming that I am saying things that I am clearly not. And how does the admission that humans are not brilliant witnesses equate with anecdotal evidence not being evidence at all? But I am not going to fall into the trap of analysing all of your separate statements as you do mine. It's a game, basically. But if I don't want to play your game, then I must be "flouncing off in a huff, whining."

I know there is no point in continuing this discussion as far as you both are concerned -- I hope that others who read this dialogue will come to their own conclusions about it. Above all I hope that people who have ideas about researching phenomena are not deterred by the kind of reception that they get from people like you!

[Cheshirecat1723]

Some people do find that channeling the power of more powerful entities produces a more viabe effect, while others prefer to use their own energy sources. All depends on the person, personally i prefer channeling my own energies but thats mainly becuase ive never met anyhigher entities before, I'll try it soon

[XenoFish]

Some people do find that channeling the power of more powerful entities produces a more viabe effect, while others prefer to use their own energy sources. All depends on the person, personally i prefer channeling my own energies but thats mainly becuase ive never met anyhigher entities before, I'll try it soon

May the Force be with you.

[Cheshirecat1723]

And with you too young padawan....not sure if i even spelt that right

Edited February 27, 2016 by Cheshirecat1723

[ChrLzs]

What do I think should be done to investigate energy healing? The first step for an investigator woud be to get involved him or herself and find out what is going on at first hand, exactly as Reddish did in the case of dowsing. That means attending healing sessions, maybe becoming a patient yourself, if you have any physical problems.

Hogwash. The first thing a NON-biased researcher should do, after defining the claims, is to consider ALL the possibilities that would be involved, from self-delusion thru to simple pattern matching and similar aspects of psychology. In other words, you look at ALL the mundane explanations and known abilities of the brain.

You sould then look at the major respected journals and look for good research. Indeed didn't I ask you to present the best you could find, stuff that has managed to get published after REAL peer review?

You seem to be avoiding that - you'd rather attend some more sessions?

OK, well, let's not nickpick too much - so let's assume that we can somehow skip those steps - why not go do it, and then come back here and tell us, in comprehensive details, about the best session and also about the doctors who ran it, the full methodology, and also the participants, how they were chosen, whether their medical records were properly scrutinised /verifiable and what you managed to actually see/verify...

I'll be happy to look at all that and show you the gaping holes - or if there aren't any congratulate you and apologise for doubting you. I'm going to take a wild stab that you won't do that, and yet if you did and you were right, I'd have not a leg to stand on.. Surely seeing me apologise would be worth it?

Anyway, the LAST thing you should do is attend carefully setup sessions run by biased claimants, and using wide eyed and gullible patients who desperately want to be cured...

I suspect that there is an element of compatibility between healer and patient, in the absence of which the process is negated.

Seriously...? Yeah it couldn't possibly be natural remission, placebo effect, or any of the many other psychological issues that might cause perceived positive results (why don't you list them - you must surely know them if you are what you say you are...)

Listen to the healers' own accounts of what they think they are doing.

Sigh - repeating this completely inappropriate approach does nothing except show that you really don't understand psychology at all..

And for heaven's sake - remember who has the burden of proof here. It's NOT up to us to show evidence that this doesn't work. In fact it is becoming rather hideously, glaringly obvious that you desperately wish to avoid showing any evidence to back the claim up - instead we see handwave after handwave.....

Edited February 28, 2016 by ChrLzs

[XenoFish]

Next you would have to observe your own bias and belief system. For example, some people have suggested that improvements may be due to the placebo effect. I don't doubt that placebo effects are present in energy healing just as they are in conventional medicine. In both cases methodology can be employed to partition out these effects. But just as belief or "faith" may have a positive effect, so might the scepticism of the investigator have a negative effect.

The reason I say it's a placebo effect is because I've seen it in action. I was once heavily into energy healing, did all the stupid exercises, everything. Even did private "healings" until I wonder what exactly was going on. Once I found out I still did them and realized that it was after all just the Placebo Effect. Basically using suggestion and actions to make the person kick in some mind over matter. While energy healing as a placebo is not all that bad, real medical help is always the best.

[DingoLingo]

It only 'works' if you believe in it..

Myself.. apparently I am very good at reiki.. but then.. those who say I am believe in reiki.. non believers (like me) feel nothing from it

I've seen energy healers.. faith healers.. shamans.. many over the years with my knees.. not one made a minute amount of difference.. and these are well recommended healers .. strange isn't it.. those who believe it works 'seem' to be better afterwards.. but never completely cured.. the pain etc ends up coming back.. guess the healing energy needs a regular top up to keep working..

energy healing.. a bogus concept that has no merit in the modern world.. it should be left in the past with other myths..