Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[Christopher Squires]

Diane,

Unfortunately I don't understand anything you just said. At what point was I being hostile? Did I say you and your beliefs were garbage that needed scraping from the underside of my boat?

You seem like a very intelligent person. In fact, everyone on here seems so. But I find the constant derision inconsistent with this intelligence. Perhaps it is time to leave you to your "forum".

-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Again, you've confused our description of your theory with your "beliefs." And since when does intelligence have anything to do with open disagreement?

Haven't you said goodbye a few times already?

[nari]

Chris
Your posts sometimes do bring up a vast amount of statements that is almost impossible to put together as a concept, be it good, bad or indifferent.
Your criticism of the bad aspects of science is fair; there is a lot of bad science around, but mainly due to people who use it for their own ends, politically and economically. But you do not mention the benefits of science-based investigation, without which we would be still rafting across the ocean with only stars and sun as indicators. Sure, the ancient sailors did pretty well, but there would have been a lot of trial and error navigation, and a dollop of good luck as well.
Without scientific curiosity we would be still hunter-gathering. That might appeal to some; but by nature we are a curious species that wants to know how and why things work. I don't think that astronomy and anthropology directly clothes people or gets them better if they are sick; but it surely invokes a strong sense of why-are-we-here and who-are-we-anyway.
Philosophy is regarded by some as an excuse to fill gaps which science cannot explain; so is religion. We can't bear uncertainty; and there is nothing certain in life; so we keep trying to find answers. Not truths (they don't exist) but plausible, logical answers to problems. Some people will settle for any answer as long as it 'fits' (in the Darwinian sense) their emotional environment.

I don't understand what you mean by "emotional sterility" in reference to science. Can you elaborate?

You almost speak of scientific investigation as if it was some kind of evil thing, in the long term, for mankind. Perhaps you do not intend to, but your writing does sound hostile towards such endeavours.

Being provided with a rudder to navigate towards one's own effective practice of physical therapy is not the same as being told exactly what to do by someone else. There is a huge difference. If carrying out a certain procedure is complex, and carries some risk, then strict information must be given and demonstrated. (In that case, why bother with it anyway - different story). There is nothing complex about SC and there is zero risk attached. A person will either get better or stay the same. No harm, every chance of gain. It doesn't sound as if one can say the same for MFR.

Cheers

Nari

[Christopher Squires]

Mr. Dorko,

"since when does intelligence have anything to do with open disagreement?"

Since when does open disagreement necessitate belittling, insulting, and being hostile?

"Haven't you said goodbye a few times already?"

I see. I shouldn't let the door hit me in the butt. I'm guessing I don't get a cap.

Nari,

Thanks for the respectful reply. I acknowledge that science's uses provide as much good as harm. It isn't really science I am even contending here, but compartmentalized thinking and arrogance. The word 'science' points to a natural inevitability in human behavior, caused by our desire for understanding. Following this thread, I see a general trend in thought that wants current scientific 'understanding' employed as much as possible in the field of manual therapy. I get that point. It's a good point. Coupled with some basic respect for others, this point may even find it's way into alternative thinking. But sheesh, some of you are relentless with the scathing alternative bashing. It seriously downgrades the presentation. Does anyone see this? Do you guys watch the stats on visitors? You're getting a lot of traffic on this site. Are you presenting the perception you really want to get tagged with?

I said emotion sterility, meaning that science tends toward a mechanistic view of life. People are very emotional creatures, mechanistic or not. They don't like to be thought of as biological machines. I was talking about why many people like 'magic' thinking, this is part of it. I'm not saying it should be emotional, I'm just saying it makes it less palatable to many people.

My perception of myofascial release and in the way I use it, it is equally safe and offers risk free treatment. Don't ask me what they do in Sedona. I have no clue and I don't intend to find out.

Science is not evil, but it can be very powerful. That makes it dangerous. It is often employed sloppily and without due respect or foresight. It is a very dangerous two edged sword and should be handled as such. Unfortunately...it is not. Yes, I have a problem with this. Science is surrounded by arrogance. This arrogance is where the problem lies, not the science.

I suppose what I have been trying to communicate is that, while everyone is standing around throwing all kinds of derision at alternative thought, science is quite rife with faults of it's own.

-Chris

[Jon Newman]

Hi Chris,

Your answer, "Just to try and bring some balance to this lopsided representation.", didn't get very far down the road to understanding. The point of a discussion forum is, obviously, a discussion. Often times there will be disagreement. A discussion will only be lopsided if no one presents the opposing view. I suppose a discussion might be a bit boring for a relativist since both sides would obviously be right. But I get the idea that you are not actually the relativist you hold yourself out to be. You stated in an earlier post

Sorry, but I didn't attend "Pinning Clients Down I or II". I think what I described is where he started with it. Where he has ended up with it...I'm afraid I may have left the party before that part of the festivities began...I would never dream of implanting ideas about possible buried memories. That sounds like the last thing I want to be involved with.

Why do you say this? What's wrong with it?

You also mentioned that you didn't have a surgery and disparaged the MD's approach by mislabeling it "real science" as opposed to doing what surgeons have to offer in order to try to help someone not helped by non surgical means. Regardless, you are implying that the surgeon was indeed wrong.

You also state:

Know the science, it can't hurt, but more important is basic observable cause and effect.

Why is this "observable cause and effect" more important, as you claim? How does one come to find a cause/effect relationship that you claim is more important?

There are many of these disparities in your posts that make it very difficult for me to follow. I'm not saying that I'm as clear as a bell in my thoughts, just that I'm having a great deal of difficulty interpreting how you are bringing "balance" to this discussion.

[Jon Newman]

Chris,

I hit my reply button and found a new post by you adding some clarity, so thanks. Still, your conceptualization of science as a thing versus a process is confusing. Science is neither good nor evil and you have actually stated this numerous time but then go on to blame the process anyway for evil and harm. Why is that?

[Diane]

Chris

Coupled with some basic respect for others, this point may even find it's way into alternative thinking. But sheesh, some of you are relentless with the scathing alternative bashing. It seriously downgrades the presentation. Does anyone see this? Do you guys watch the stats on visitors? You're getting a lot of traffic on this site. Are you presenting the perception you really want to get tagged with?

I do believe you are trying to shame us into more proper (from your perspective) behavior.
Don't you think it took years for each one of us to get to the place where we don't care what anyone else (with less thought process) thinks about what we think? If you feel scandalized by it, then that's just tough darts. All of us love to do manual therapy. Some of us feel.. um, hostile about the sort of dismal shape most of it is in, how it is patronized, how little respect it has, how far it has to go before it can be all that it can be. That is what needs the mopping. Don't take everything so personally, puh-leeeeeze.
And I don't care, frankly, what does or doesn't get into "alternative" thinking. That's not my issue. I want to salvage what I can of manual therapy from "alternative thinking."

[Christopher Squires]

Jon,

I think I admitted in my very first post that I am not a scientist. I am not educated as a scientist and so I am playing catch up with my thinking. I have tried to make a distinction between science and it's applications. However, the separation is not a big one. No science...no applications. What good is science without good applications. I'm sure we can all agree that our hope is that science will help make us better therapists. If it doesn't, then science has served nothing. If, in it's application or strict adherence, we become worse therapists, then it has been a detriment. This is, of course, my view and does not represent purist thinking.

-Chris

[Walt Fritz]

Come to think of it, I never was offered a hat either

Hi Chris,

Just a suggestion...try telling Barrett to stop being so condescending, it worked for me in the past. By the way, he likes to get the last word in. Once you don't show up for a few days he'll puff up his feathers and say that you must be scared. You've made many good points, though most here aren't getting them. Try throwing the word "meme" around in your posts. I think that might help them understand better. Insert a virus-thought or two and you'll have them on the floor.

Barrett

I define practice as the way you actually employ what you’ve learned. It is an individual thing driven by all the unique things that surround you. I don’t tell others how to do that and I don’t want to be told how to do it either.

Barrett, did you actually read what you wrote? Live and let live, so to speak? I had to come back on just to point out the complete hypocricy in this statement. You've been writing, and apparently lecturing, for decades, doing just the opposite of your statement. I'm sure we can all revisit the MFR thread to see the numerous citations to prove this fact. Maybe you should have edited it to say the following:

I define practice as the way you actually employ what you’ve learned, as long as Diane and I approve. It is an individual thing driven by all the unique things that surround you, just don't equate me with that Barnes guy 'cause I'm gonna get mad again. I don’t tell others how to do that (but I do tell people, often, how NOT to do it) and I don’t want to be told how to do it either.

Oh, Tim, careful with the questions, or you'll get the hat taken away.

Walt

[Christopher Squires]

No Diane, I'm not trying to shame you into anything. I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing. Project whatever you want.

-Chris

[Diane]

Ok, thanks for clearing that up Chris. Next.

Walt,

Barrett

I define practice as the way you actually employ what you’ve learned. It is an individual thing driven by all the unique things that surround you. I don’t tell others how to do that and I don’t want to be told how to do it either.

Barrett, did you actually read what you wrote? Live and let live, so to speak? I had to come back on just to point out the complete hypocricy in this statement. You've been writing, and apparently lecturing, for decades, doing just the opposite of your statement. I'm sure we can all revisit the MFR thread to see the numerous citations to prove this fact. Maybe you should have edited it to say the following:

Telling someone how to hold tissue just so and then push, is an example of telling people what to "do." Telling them they are affecting fascia by pushing on it is telling them what to "believe." Telling them a couple of thought processes to consider, and a few (decent) books to read (not Oschman), is suggesting they learn to "think." Not what to think, how. Difference.

[Barrett Dorko]

Walt,

You're way off - again. I said that practice should follow what we've learned. I presume that what we learn will reflect reality as provisionally described by science. You seem to think that it's perfectly okay to impose upon patients a practice and treatment derived by reality as described by Carlos Castenada and Shirley MacLaine. I will always object to such a practice because it is fraudulent and potentially harmful.

What made you think that I ever stopped being mad about this? It appears that I will maintain that attitude for some time to come given the inability of the Barnes crowd to change or think.

[Walt Fritz]

Chris,
If you tell Diane to stop being so condescending, it may work like it did when I said it to Barrett in the past.

Diane

Telling someone how to hold tissue just so and then push, is an example of telling people what to "do." Telling them they are affecting fascia by pushing on it is telling them what to "believe." Telling them a couple of thought processes to consider, and a few (decent) books to read (not Oschman), is suggesting they learn to "think." Not what to think, how. Difference.

But, since you do not approve of Oschman, and found a source which confirms your views, telling us NOT to read Oschman as one source of knowledge is doing exactly what you accuse MFR/Barnes of doing: Telling people what to read/think/believe. I think that you may have surpassed Barrett in terms of seething anger toward anything differing from your views. John Barnes tells no one what to believe. In fact, re-read the MFR thread. He states, on the very first day, "Don't believe a word of what I say. Try this for yourself. Keep what works for you and discard what does not". Maybe you missed this on the two times you took one of his seminars. By the way, did you take one from him? Or did someone else teach the class?

Walt

[nari]

Chris

It has just occurred to me that when you say you see science as mechanistic, you may be thinking of anatomy, physics, chemistry and forty-five different systems in the body operating independently as physiology is taught in schools..or used to be, anyway. I couldn't agree more.

But it is sooooo much more than hard cold facts. Have a read of Ramachandran, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Oliver Sacks...these guys are scientists in the sense that they investigate what is really happening in the body, in a very non-mechanical tenor.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

And here I thought that Walt was not here because he was working on the answers to the twenty or so questions from us he's ignored. I still really want to know about that ""in the clouds" picture on Barnes' brochure. Have you asked him yet Walt?

Diane was obviously connecting the Oschman book and the descriptive word "decent," not suggesting that Oschman's work not be read at all.

What are you talking about with this repetitive referral to condescension? Is this just another pathetic attempt to stop our disagreeing with you or temper our argument with the nature of your theory and practice?

I'm sure Barnes begins by telling others not to believe him. This is a common ploy among salesmen and it has nothing to do with the worth of their product. He knows well enough that most therapists, in fact, most people, are just looking for something to believe in. What he doesn't tell them not to do is "follow" him. This he wants, and he structures his courses in this manner. Before you know it he's got all sorts of followers and believers.

I think even Walt would find it hard to disagree with that.