<< What was offered was a lot of uncorroborated
speculation supported by no genuine scientific research. The craniosacral
therapists erred in venturing into speculations which totally ignore the
possibility of a role being played by certain psychological processes. That
is appallingly incomplete and presumptuous pseudoscience. >>
Tell me Mel, what is science and what is pseudoscience? Physiotherapy was
considered a lot of belony 30 years ago in Norway. I don't think I have to
say anything about acupuncture, manual therapy, homeopathy, haptonomy,
osteopathy, connective tissue massage, reflextherapy etc.
In my opinion western, so-called science is at a high level but also very
arrogant and biased.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
Isaac
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 23. januar 2001 11:15
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Craniosacral Therapy
On 1/23/01, [log in to unmask] writes:
<< And btw, what is wrong with a placebo effect? If the patient is cured
what
does it really matter? Many roads lead to Rome. Let's be open for other,
less
conventional approaches and don't nag "it's
not evidence based" to quickly. >>
***Nobody ever said that there was anything "wrong" with a placebo effect.
The issue was that a certain form of therapy was being explained by its
proponents to operate on the basis of direct structural alterations in the
musculoskeletal system. Had they stated that gentle craniosacral touch
elicits some placebo or other psychological effect, then nobody would have
been harshly critical. What was offered was a lot of uncorroborated
speculation supported by no genuine scientific research. The craniosacral
therapists erred in venturing into speculations which totally ignore the
possibility of a role being played by certain psychological processes. That
is appallingly incomplete and presumptuous pseudoscience.
Many of us are very open to alternative and innovative approaches, but, for
the sake of professionalism and science, don't let anyone claim that some or
other beguiling method has scientific validity when it does not. Otherwise
why bother to academically educate, train and register physical therapists,
doctors and similar professionals - why not let them indulge in any old
mumbo
jumbo which works because of placebo effects or supranormal incantations to
the health gods? If something 'works' and you don't know why it works,
then
state that you do not know why it works and let that be a stimulus for
research, but don't state beliefs as facts and laws.
What is wrong with craniosacral practitioners stating that their methods
work
possibly because of psychological reasons which have not yet been examined?
Why do they have to insist on subtle biomechanical processes which have not
been proved? To reconcile different possible explanations, let them even
state that their method 'works' in certain cases possibly because of subtle
mechanical reasons, a relaxation response, a placebo effect or some other
psychological process? That would be far more balanced, conservative and
acceptable at this stage of the game.
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
http://www.egroups.com/group/supertraining
|