I don't believe in New Age term: "Energy"

[Heddwen]

Then again there is always this abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

[Bart]

Which implies what?

I think the effect of touch therapies are discussed in another topic: yes the do have an effect, but how. It can very well be that the soothing touch of a nice person mellows you down. And as a result you see bodily changes. If a nice person touches me I always have a feeling, sometimes even a bodily reflex: nothing to do with energy. Humans are build to interact.

BTW energy cannot be null, this is a given in physics. The observer might only change the outcome.

[Heddwen]

Not all vibrational healing modalities involve physical touch and can be performed distances. The authors reccommend further areas for research, this could involve a double blind test.one group receiving 'energy' and another a placebo practitioner.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

[Bart]

Agreed, but it does not imply energy was send. Could be anything else.

[mark the compost elf]

If matter and a temporal allowance is given for a unit of energy, then it can be percieved as null, or base, as matter, despite consisting of energy, wil not read as energetic, without a surplus to measure. physics as a working theory assumes a constancy of perception, perhaps we are percieving energy to mean something other than it is intended to mean in the new age term. We could just as well be trying t o measure how mythical a myth is. Perception and opinion would vary amongst debators.
If 'energy' is nothing more than neurons acting funky, then perhaps we should take solace and see beauty in that we can care enough to wish another being is well.

[Bart]

I wish everybody well.

But if you start using terminolgy from science, to make your good feeling become sound and sciency: people are allowed to point you in the other direction. Maybe new age needs to accept that physics does not have the terminology yet for their level of energy. Maybe the fluffy scientist should come up with a field of their own. This would help with the clarity.

[Muddy Fox]

I think you will find Bart that not everyone on this planet needs to have their experiences endorsed by scientific fact and terminology. We merely try to describe an experience and being limited to the language and culture of our time we have to select certain words. "Energy" works for me. I don't think scientists have the monopoly on any given language.
Maybe, science and reason will always be at odds with experience/faith/spirituality. I don't intend to worry about it to be frank and have never been on a path to prove anything to anybody. You can take or leave me. I'm not seeking endorsement by intellectuals. It seems to me that those of a scientific bent assume they have the right to test and investigate everything, we don't all operate in the same way.
Furthermore as someone has already pointed out, it is the intention that counts and if the intention is to help another human being in their suffering and distress why knock people for it?

[Bart]

Dear Angelique,

I am sorry if the discussion offends you, but nothing here said is meant personal. This is a thread on a principle.

I do not have any issue with the unproven, I regard most things in life as uncertain. Also in science. And on a more personal note, I am even a level two Reiki practioner. But that does not mean I need to stop and wonder why. You are most welcome not to do so.

[Muddy Fox]

Dear Bart,
I am not offended in the slightest. I am not taking anything personally, I am just giving the "fluffy" side's opinion.
If you want to lay bare your healing skills/practice to scientific investigation in an effort too prove it's "worthiness" you are free to do so. I am just pointing out that some of us have neither the wish or desire to.

[DJ Droood]

I think you will find Bart that not everyone on this planet needs to have their experiences endorsed by scientific fact and terminology

Yet they seem to be drawn to the Skeptical Druid like June Bugs to a porch light....(or maybe unicorns to a rainbow) I think someone should commission a study.

[Tynan Elder Oak]

I wish to apologise to those contributing on this thread. Apparently in mentioning the names of scientists I read about, I was citing a paper I knew nothing about, for which I have had my hand metaphorically slapped. For clarification let me state catagorically I do not know this paper you are refering to. If I knew what paper the scientists were talking about I would have quoted it. Conversation does not usually require fullsome bibliography!!!!! I thought I was in a conversation not arguing with scientists!!!!!

I will withdraw from this thread as it is obvious that unless you are ONLY prepared to accept that things HAVE been measured, quantified and written up in a scientific paper adjudicated by peers and correctly cited in terms of bibliography, opnion is not counted worthy.

This is not what I thought Druidry was about and I feel it is a shame that honest conversation should be slapped down through PM's, and those with a differing opinion should be treated like naughty schoolchildren.

My main point was about the 'energy' that is found everywhere, that may not quantifable, such as love, is a force we all acknowledge, well it certainly isnt measureable on this thread.

Yes I am offended! Think a little bit more about dialogue instead of being RIGHT.

[Bart]

Dear Tynan,

I am not aware of any PM's to you, to me the discussion is based on the sub-forum it is posted in: the critical druid and the initial thread.

And I was intriguid by your scientists, but yes I do look at the source.

[Lily]

't was me who wrote a PM. I meant to just summarize why that paper is not good science. Maybe my command of the english language is insufficient to make up for unintentional offense with two apologies in one message.

Oh, and one rason for taking it offline is because the thread had movd on by the time I came back.

[joey_bernard]

Hi all. Just thought I would just chime in here about the turn toward therapeutic touch. This has already been shown to not exist by a nine year old girl, Emily Rosa. She did this as a science fair project, and it was a simple, very clear blinded test to see if you could detect a human "aura". Nope. You can read a bit more at

http://www.skepdic.com/tt.html

As for a breakdown of "The Tao of Physics", that has been in the back of my head for a while now. Maybe I should push it to the front and actually give it a stab.

Joey

[mark the compost elf]

Happy thoughts everybody, this thread seems to have ruffled some feathers.

it's amazing that modern physics moves more and more towards a 'magical' veiw point of reality and that we feel the need to justify our beliefs by using a language.

If we all believe and know something to be true, then all those things are true even if they differ immensely - perhaps we are all looking at a different facet of the face of reality (or is it really real at all).

The principle of uncertainty is again one that should be applied to all tings, IMO a healthy critical veiw is a great thing to apply to all things offered by others. But agreeing to disagree holds no shame, that is the greatness of debate. Any truth is objective.

Is energy, as is meant by 'New agers or believers' something that some are more sensitive to than others, is that why soem have more of an issue with it than others?

[Davin Raincloud]

I just wanted to add...it's not that I don't understand the many many concepts. It's just my intuition keeps telling me this is wrong.

It's been telling me for ten years, whenever someone starts using the word energy...my intuition is like: BLLLAAAARRRTT WRONG!

It's not that I don't want to believe. I do, it's just my intuition, which is never wrong tells me this stuff is...well.... a lie.

It's not even an opinion I have consciously.

[Muddy Fox]

[Lily]

good one, davin, so you dis-believe something, and admit it. fine!
That's like hard atheism. I have to admit I'd have to call myself an agnostic, because even though I can firmly say There is no evidence for the existence of deity, who says there isn't something out there just watching.
Althiugh that would make "it" a rather useless entity.

this thread raised a new Question for me: have people stopped believing that deity's existence can be proven, and have therefore moved on to "lesser phenomena"?

and the little fray has taught me, be careful whom you believe if they just cite.
As an example, when it comes to early british history, Hutton will be more trustworthy than anything published by Llewellyn, Inc.

[Bart]

The question if god exist or is it all biological still exist. It is still heavily debated, but you usually do not find it on a druid site.

I still have the book " God as misconception" to read. That was not published long ago. Dawkins goes on about it in his latest book, and that was published recently. And I am reading a recent book by a Dutch neurologist, who states that any connection to god, is either a epileptic insult, a delirium or just a misconception. Science used to be helpfull in understanding creation and therefor god. These day we have a case of oedipus complex, the child is trying to kill the father. (and yes you have a female version as well)

I also read another philosophical forum: there the commen perception is that there is no deity. So again it comes down to perspective. everything is relative.

[LoneWalker]

Since this is the skeptical druid I thought I'd go hunting for some more studies (by the way I don't advise searching for "healing energy" on pub-med, way too many hits completely unrelated to this).
What interests me is not what we might mean when we talk about energy but whether we can use it so here is a review of studies looking at outcomes of "energy" related healing therapies performed in the same room as the patient. (my criteria for choosing this study were - a)free access to whole article and b) systematic review of the literature.
There does seem to be an effect in some groups of patients.

Since many of these biofield therapies (definition from footnote in article: NCCAM describes biofields as “putative energy fields [that] have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. Therapies involving putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy.” (Medicine, 2004)) involve touch this may be part of the effect but some of the studies with a placebo control still show a greater effect of the therapy.

Please rip into this study and let the discussion move on

If I have time I'll see if I can find a similar review for distance healing