Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

[quote=Herbalnurse;3661826]Not of therapeutic value? Healing doesn't have to be curing. Most people who are dying of cancer have disturbed energy fields.

How do you know?

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

I am not going to spend any more of my energy on this debate. My precious time and energy is worth more than debating with a naysayer and someone obviously negative and not informed.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by Herbalnurse

I am not going to spend any more of my energy on this debate. My precious time and energy is worth more than debating with a naysayer and someone obviously negative and not informed.

Inform me.

Preferably with double-blinded studies testing your therapies and physics experiments outlining how the "energy" you discuss fits into general relativity.

Surely if it exists and exerts an effect it can be detected and quantified, right?

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

www.healingtouchresearch.com

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

That doesn't answer either of my questions. If we want to argue via funny hyperlink, I suggest http://www.timecube.com

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

That is quite some link, hypo!

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

The problem healing touch has is threefold:

First, it has to demonstrate and define the existence of the supposed energy field it premises itself on.

Second, it has to demonstrate a causal relationship between the therapeutic techniques upon the above-stated energy field, and between the energy field and human physiology.

Third, it has to demonstrate effects above placebo in controlled, double-blinded studies.


Its advocates have jumped straight to the third problem, bypassing the first two. Even if it is a successful therapy, without the first two problems adequately solved there is no reason to believe its success is due to an alteration in "energy fields" any more than there is to believe its effects are due to simple physiophyschological responses or solar flares or moon dust or a butterfly sneezing in the rain forest.

Imagine I have a rock. Ever since I've had this special rock, a tiger has come nowhere near me.

I could postulate a special anti-tiger aura emitted from my magic stone or I could reason that perhaps its anti-tiger properties are due to me located in suburban Houston where tigers are not likely to be found in the wild.

The lack of scientific thinking severely irks me.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

I am really done with this conversation. I am glad that at 26 you are the smartest person on this discussion, full of answers for all the worlds problems. Become a book smart research scientest or something, and take all the human touch and caring out of the equation.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Thank you for the ad hominem.

I am trying to encourage scientific thinking. I'm sorry this upsets you.

I am open to believing in your therapy modality if you can demonstrate the veracity of the modality empirically.

Re: Disturbed Energy Field? Yes or No?

Actually, empiricism is only ONE scientific way of knowing in nursing. Carper, in her seminal work Fundamental Patterns of Knowing in Nursing (1978), identified FOUR different scientific ways of knowing in nursing: personal, ethical, aesthetic, and empirical. Not every natural phenomenon can be captured empirically - just not possible. Does not make it any less real - or any less scientific.

Medical model = empirics, reductionism
Nursing model = holistic focus, taking into account all four patterns of knowing