Chapter 17: Therapeutic Touch

[DarkCosmoz]

I have my last AP Psychology test tomorrow. While I was studying, I came upon this in my textbook under a chapter titled "Therapy":

" Among the most popular recent alternative therapies is therapeutic touch. Its tens of thousands of practitioners worldwide move their hands a few inches from a patient's body, purportedly "pushing energy fields into balance..."

To put therapeutic touch to the test, fourth grader Emily Rosa and her mother schemed a simple experiment. Why not test healer's ability to detect the supposed energy field by inviting them to rest their hands, palms up, on a flat surface? Thanks to a screen, the healers wouldn't see their own or Emily's hands. After the toss of a coin, Emily would hover a hand over one of the practitioner's hands (the experimental hands) to see if the practitioner could detect that this hand rather than the other was receiving the energy field.

Could they beat chance - 50 percent? They could not, averaging but 47 percent correct. A year later, the trials were repeated - the practitioners got 41 percent correct. The results, published in the prestigious Journal of American Medical Association, caused its editor to conlude that the supposed human energy field "does not exist" and that patients should "save their money."
...
Thus, the tentaive scientific verdict is that therapeutic touch (actually nontouch) does not work, nor is there any credible theory that predicts why it might. "

It's rare that I get mad while studying for a test. ... Even I, a beginner who learns qigong from books, can sense the powerful magnetic sensation between my palms. I can also sense the “energy field” in other’s palms too with my eyes closed. I think that the statement that the human energy field “does not exist” is a little bold considering the fact that the experiment was done by a fourth grader and that there were only 21 people used. From other scientific journals I have read for my science scholars research, normally, a few hundred people are used. At a pharmaceutical I worked at as an intern, about 700 clients were used in an experiment.

Best wishes,
Stephen

Namo Guan Shi Yin Pu Sa

[Frogular]

I looked at the actual paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
The paper said that practitioners got 123 out of 180 trials correct. This is 44% right. Applying chi-squared statistics, the chance that a 44% result would occur by random guessing is less than 5%. There seems to be an intentional bias against the TT people.
The other problem is that these TT people probably do not practice real qigong - TT is mostly unfounded New Age ideas that borrow heavily from the real stuff. So, they probably don't have any sensitivity to energy; if they do, its at a level so marginal that it's statistically insignificant.

The staring experiment proposed by Rupert Sheldrake certainly works though! I tried it with some of my friends and got results similar but better than his. (maybe I stare too hard with chi! heh)

http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/staring/staring_experiment.html

[cnholmes]

Originally posted by Frogular
The paper said that practitioners got 123 out of 180 trials correct. This is 44% right.

I don't understand this...

Here's the percentages as I understand them...

44% of 180 = 79.2

68% of 180 = 122.4

Did I miss something?

On the subject of small sample sizes, thats a general malaise in 'modern' science. Especially when the sample is carefully selected, or inadequately ("I asked ten students in my History class what they thought of the Suez Crisis").

A large part of the problem is that empirical science can't cope with anecdotal evidence. In order to produce a reproducable 'proof' you have to treat the subject as a measurable, mechanical and predictable thing. A person practicing Chi kung just isn't that. Most of the evidence has to be extracted by asking the subject of their experiences.

As to their response that the human energy field does not exist - just because you didn't find something with the method you selected, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Chris.

[Andrew]

Typo

I had a quick look at the paper .... it was 123 right out of 280 not 180 ..... not that I support the conclusions of that paper.

Andrew

[Frogular]

Yeah sorry, I meant to type out of 280. heh.

[Frogular]

Originally posted by cnholmes
A large part of the problem is that empirical science can't cope with anecdotal evidence. In order to produce a reproducable 'proof' you have to treat the subject as a measurable, mechanical and predictable thing. A person practicing Chi kung just isn't that. Most of the evidence has to be extracted by asking the subject of their experiences.
Chris.

Conversely, I believe that just because qigong is more subjective does not make it impossible to prove empirically - it just makes it harder to propose a workable experiment.
We claim results (health, vitality, etc). Empirically, that is simply measuring a statistically significant improvement over people who do not practice qigong. If that cannot be shown, then qigong is logically useless.
But there are the difficulties of running such an experiment - many people do not practice qigong at a high enough level to create significant difference. Even if there is a slight improvement, the effect will be so small that a very, very, large sample size will be required to ensure that small improvement is indeed statistically significant.

For example, qigong practitioners could try the same therapeutic touch test. If the practitioners have a low level, they may not be so sensitive and only get it 60% right. In that case, over 200-300 "right-left" trials will have to be done to make sure that 60% wasn't obtained by random chance.
To further experiment, we could try placing sheets of different materials between the hands to see if there are materials that block qi, like wood, copper, lead, etc.
Of course, those academics who try to prove these claims are always deemed heretical. Sad. However, you can do these simply experiments by yourself if you suspect your own feelings of qi are placebo. Well at least my dormmates are convinced that qi exists now!