Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[EricM]

Bear with me while I try to simplify things with a little riddle. Sorry if this is getting redundant.

The MFR’ers and the SC’ers and any Other’ers all start with a patient in pain.
Let’s say they each start with exactly the same patient at point A.
Each will apply a ‘treatment’ for that patient.
These treatments for the sake of argument are quite similar in appearance and ‘technique.’
At point B, the end of treatment, the patient says they feel better.
One therapist says to the other, “Nice job, you made the patient better.” “What happened to make it that way, how did the patient get from A to B?”
The other therapist says, “Easy, X happened.”
The first therapist says, “Hmm, I’m not sure about that, because Y happened.”
They do not disagree that the patient moved from point A to point B. The disparity is in the explanation of how the patient got from A to B.
As there is only one patient, there can be only one way the patient got from point A to point B.
Was it through X?
Was it through Y?
Or was it neither; was it through Z?

How do we answer this riddle?


Eric

[nari]

How indeed....

Assuming there is something in common with X and Y, such as placebo or touch or language or education.....

If X involves 50% (or 70%...)of Y, and Y involves 50% (or 30%...) of X, then:

X+Y =Z.

However, Z can still include the fallacious and incorrect reasoning.

If X is completely free of any association with Y, and vice versa, then that would be a most peculiar Z and deserves very close scrutiny.


Nari

[EricM]

Are you saying we should study what science has to say about X, Y and Z Nari? You must be nuts! What about beliefs, opinions and good old fashioned fairytales!?! There has to be some truths in those too, can't there be?

Eric

[nari]

Dunno, Eric...

I never believed in Santa (because it was never suggested to me that one existed) or the tooth fairy (ditto) so maybe I am biased because of a shortage of myths in childhood.
However I recall being madly in love with Peter Pan. I wonder if that counts.

The flat-Earthers never counted, either, because with all the travelling I did as a kid we never fell off the edge. But, come to think of it, I remember being told one time that when we crossed the Equator I would be thrown out of the bunk. Didn't sleep that night.....

Nari

[bernard]

Pia,

I'll be the bad guy hidden behind the "screen" of science.
Since J Barnes tells us some truths within his "scientific rationale", I just want some clear and definite, precise responses.

The Quantum Shift that I have been talking about has occurred

When?

A dramatic discovery reveals that there is actually no such thing as a disease.

Please be more precise, date, discoverer ?

For years scientists and philosophers have stated that the physical brain is the source of consciousness, yet there is no evidence of this!

Is there some proof saying the contrary or denying it?
Is there a proof saying that a non material one exists?

Russian physicists have discovered “torsion waves” that travel as energy and information at the speed at the order of 10 to the 9th power that means one billion times the speed of light!

I want their names!

It has been found that this instantaneous communication is at 20,000 times the speed of light

References?

In healthy individuals, the quantum light is highly organized.

References?

Sorry Pia, I agree with results but reject, for now, the "scientific rationale" until more explanations/clues coming from the MFRers.

[Christopher Squires]

I'm still trying to locate the hard science behind Simple Contact (the therapeutic use of ideomotor movement). There seems to be very little out there on this. Did you guys realize you're on the raggedy edge? I think you're dangerously close to falling into your own begrudged antithesis.

At what point does something become scientific fact? Is it when it becomes widely accepted? Like...um...bird flu? :teeth:

-Chris

[bernard]

Bad response, Christopher! :angel:
Do not try to be cynical or avoid to reply to these simple questions.
You're caught in Virginia, perhaps in Washington DC? Right?
The land of Dave, Walt...

[EricM]

Christopher S, you continually seem to be confusing the science that proves the achievement of point B with that which explains how one gets from A to B. In my simplistic way of thinking that is. You just need more time maybe, you'll get it, I eventually did.

Eric

[Diane]

Check this out, Chris. It is Barrett's essay, A Sense of Things. It contains "the hard science behind simple contact." It's the lack of just such actual science in MFR that is the issue here, why no one here appreciates Barnes- he's on a theoretical wild goose chase.

[Jon Newman]

Chris,

What is our antithesis?

[Barrett Dorko]

Scientific fact? It doesn't work like that, but rather ideas, theories and the like progress toward credibility as the end result of hard work, reasonable argument and the discovery of evidence that justifies our vision of the deep model we cannot see.

E.O. Wilson says it best in Consiliance - The Unity of Knowledge:

Few claims in science, and particularly those entailing concepts, are accepted as final. But as evidence piles upon evidence and theories interlock more firmly, certain bodies of knowledge do gain universal acceptance. In seminar dialect they ascend a scale of credibility from“interesting”to “suggestive”to “persuasive”to “compelling.”And given enough time thereafter, “obvious.”

Barnes' ideas, while interesting to anybody if only because of their eccentric (if not bizzare) nature coupled with their outlandish claims of success never get past that point because he's got no decent evidence to pile. He seems to be piling something else, and he knows that many therapists are unable or unwilling to examine what it is he's actually piling.

[Christopher Squires]

You guys have proven to be a lot of fun to interact with. :teeth:

Bernard,

Did I fail to answer some question? Do Walt and Dave live here. I don't believe I've met either of those gentlemen.

Eric,

I get the difference. I just think it's funny to point out science's idiot children.

Are the physical therapists using Simple Contact not out on a scientific limb, so to speak? Ideomotor movement as therapy is not mainstream, correct? I'm just trying to gain perspective on this whole discussion. I'm zooming out, so to speak.

Mr. Dorko,

I think I'm beginning to understand you a bit. Thanks for the post. I'll read your article tonight that Diane referenced. I am trying to get some clarity on all this. Where on the "interesting" to "obvious" scale would you rate the current status of Simple Contact? Cheers.

-Chris

[Diane]

Where on the "interesting" to "obvious" scale would you rate the current status of Simple Contact?

I'd peg it at 75% "persuasive" for now, 25% "compelling." I have felt "compelled" to understand it but not to jump ship over to doing it exclusively, so it hasn't become "obvious" to me quite yet.

[bernard]

Did I fail to answer some question?

You didn't but you didn't try to answer to my simple questions.
You lost, once more. Brain washed fascia, again...

[Christopher Squires]

Bernard,

I believe you have me confused with someone else. I never argued in favor of Barnes' theories being scientific. In fact, I believe my first post on this forum admitted they were not. I did say I believed it provided a usable framework to base techniques upon, and I still contend that. But that's not what we're discussing. If I've missed some other simple question, please let me know. It's hard to lose a game you're not playing. I consider myself a student in the field of manual therapy. I'll give you my real opinion in twenty years.

Diane,

Thanks for the honest assessment.

-Chris