Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My introduction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    John W. is welcome to come by to watch me work or measure me with a machine. I don't believe I will develop the ability to produce a numerical output of what I feel anytime soon in order to offer proof.
    Hi Yonathan,
    It's not about disproving you outright. Science is more about what is most likely and what is less/least likely. I cant say with 100% certainty that you're not feeling fascia when you palpate a client. I can say with 100% certainty however, that you are not feeling the fascia in isolation, and I do not require a machine and/or a numerical output to state that there is doubt surrounding the notion that you can directly affect fascia with your treatment/work. Science is a process we use to make collective sense of our unavoidably subjectively experienced lives. Science is about minimizing the number of assumptions we make in our efforts to explain the world around us.


    The neuroscience literature does not lead us to a point of absolute certainty. I can not say with certainty that I am definitely "right" to have a neurocentric explanatory model for my work as a manual therapist. But Neuroscience/pain science research and the palpation studies john w referenced above cast massive doubts over the reasonableness of other commonly practiced and widely/blindly accepted models that rely heavily on sensory perception as a means for assessing, explaining and treating a given clinical presentation. Consider the following:
    • The myofascial trigger point crowd are convinced they can palpate and effect trigger points for the benefit of their clients
    • The SI crowd are convinced they can palpate and effect fascia for the benefit of their clients
    • The MFR crowd are convinced they can palpate and release emotions/memories buried in fascia for the benefit of their clients
    • The specific ortho crowd are convinced they can palpate and effect facet joint capsules for the benefit of their clients
    • The CST crowd are convinced they can palpate and effect cerebrospinal fluid flow/pulses and cranial sutures position for the benefit of their clients
    • The core stability crowd are convinced they can palpate and effect the pattern of contraction of the transversus abdominus and lumbar multifidus for the benefit of their clients
    • The energy medicine crowd are convinced they can sense and effect the energy of their clients for their benefit
    Do I need to present you with objective data from a machine made by a subjective man to convince you that it is impossible for all of these models to be correct, including SI? They cant all be right, right? If you're convinced that you can feel fascia moving, and you can effect it in a manner that benefits your clients, how do you explain the positive outcomes of the therapist who is convinced he palpates problems within and maneuvers facet joints for the benefit of his client? Or the therapist who is convinced that he palpates problematic trigger points and releases them for the benefit of his clients? Are they wrong? Are they actually affecting fascia while deluding themselves they're affecting some other tissue? Or are all these disparate models correct for certain clients, and each proponent of each model is lucky enough to have clients walk through their door with dysfunction in the same tissue that each proponent has a penchant for targeting? What are the odds of that happening?

    What's more likely? Is it more likely that you are skillfully moving fascia for the benefits of your clients, while everyone else is unskillfully/accidentally/unintentionally affecting fascia while fooling themselves that they are targeting their preferred tissue? Is it likely that clients with specific problems in specific tissues self select particular therapists who specialize in treating said specific tissue?

    Or is it more likely that there is a common thread that links these disparate explanations/methods and accounts for the good outcomes enjoyed by each method? What if there was a model that was broad and stretchy enough to account for the most variables while making the least assumptions relative to other models upon which manual therapy practices are built? Wouldnt you be interested in learning about that? Wouldnt it be worth scrutinizing your current model to determine whether or not it might be prudent to graduate/shift toward a more reasonable and defensible model? If your answer to the last question is no, then I would agree with Nari and say that this site may not be the right place for you for whatever stage you're at in your career/life. I would also add that if your answer to the final question is no, I feel sorry for clients.

    Comment


    • #77
      Patrick,

      Can you just copy that post. Every time someone new starts a Welcome thread the devolves like this one did just post it early on. That was excellent.

      Eric
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      Body is imbued with mind, and mind is embodied.

      Comment


      • #78
        Look, I agree that everything that I sense is from the information I get through my senses. There is something out there, which seems one way to me, and another way to another, and another way to a machine, and so on and so forth. That's a very wonderful idea, which is not new to me. You can take another look at what I said in my introduction.

        Your next assumption: senses are subject to change, and therefore unreliable.
        I've said what I had to say on that subject.

        The next totally ungraceful leap of thought: therefore the method you are using is either useless, wrong, nonsense, just placebo or mind control, or dangerous since it can't be measured scientifically. Why?
        Because my understanding of what I do does not match your understanding. Return to the first assumption.

        I have heard of PT's busting people's ligaments and tearing muscles when testing for range of motion. I know of a lot of people who go to PT's for pain and will almost invariably come back with a rubber band to pull on to strengthen the weak muscle. I've heard of a few PT's that people are really impressed by.
        But to tell the truth, I don't know any PT's personally so I don't make assumptions on the whole group. I don't know where you guys are coming from that you feel so happy to have "discovered" that your experience is not necessarily someone else's
        If your current ideas make you more cautious about who you work with, or feel more sophisticated, that's great. We do totally different work for totally different reasons.
        I am not unsatisfied with my work, I just came to see what was being discussed, and it is not my cup of tea.

        Comment


        • #79
          I just came to see what was being discussed, and it is not my cup of tea.
          Oh but I think it could be. I think the problem is the language with which you use to understand some of the members here. After all, you could use this as therapy for your language, should you choose to. If you saw it as that and not an exercise in defending yourself you may very well be on a better track.

          E
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          Body is imbued with mind, and mind is embodied.

          Comment


          • #80
            the method you are using is...dangerous since it can't be measured scientifically
            That's a gross mis-characterization of at least my position.

            You seem to want to have it both ways. You want to use your obviously capable skills of intellect and logic, which many brilliant individuals have formalized over the course of centuries to develop the "tried and true" scientific method (are you arguing that it hasn't been tried and true for explaining and predicting natural phenomena?); yet, you want to think that you're capable also of acquiring immeasurable skills to help others overcome physical (natural) problems or improve whatever (natural) state they've come to you to improve.

            This is an untenable and illogical position.

            Comparable notions to yours have been exhaustively studied and proven to lack scientific validity. You have no answer to this. You seem to have sort of made a choice to go with your sensory experience as the ultimate arbiter of truth.

            We here, on the other hand, use science to help discover what is less wrong than the explanations that have preceded our prior understanding. I think our position here is certainly more humble and, more importantly, less potentially harmful than yours. (When I say "harmful", I don't mean necessarily by causing damage to an individual, which is certainly possible, but I'm also talking about the societal costs that come with espousing methods that may be less effective and/or more expensive than other methods. We have to consider the relative effectiveness of our methods. People are spending a lot their money on bunk.)

            You haven't convinced me otherwise.

            The tu quoque argument about all the bad PT out there doesn't fly here, either. There are literally hundreds of threads here criticizing precisely what you have identified.
            John Ware, PT
            Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
            "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
            “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
            be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

            Comment


            • #81
              John W.,
              Doubting someone's ability to work with their hands based solely on the the explanation of what they feel can hardly be considered humble. In fact, in the martial arts world, such a thing is equivalent to what is called "a challenge". I accepted the challenge. You questioned my ability to feel with my hands, not my ability to explain what I feel. Retract your statement, or come to CT with an instrument and prove you were right. I don't mind challenges to my logic, but if you want to talk smack about my work without having experienced it or met anyone who has, you are out of line. Theory is not the same as practice. If I say I feel something, you can't argue with that, it is my own subjective experience, and there is no danger in that to anyone. If I say I can heal something with it, or teach you how to do the same, the story changes. See the elephant dream again.

              I did not doubt anyone's ability here to work with others. I have been challenging the logic and explanations, but I did not doubt anyone's ability to do their job or skill with their hands. As a subjectivist, this would be unacceptable. I have never experienced or watched you work.


              There were a couple of questions I asked which you left unanswered:

              What was your experience with the exercise you learned from the osteopath?

              What objective methods of would you use to assess or treat another person if there were no electricity?

              And a couple of new ones:

              should I attempt to limit what I feel to match my limited intellectual understanding?

              "Comparable notions to yours have been exhaustively studied and proven to lack scientific validity"

              If you are taking "scientific validity" as something steady against which to measure, I don't know how that works. Can you please name the oldest scientifically valid text which you are aware of? I'd like to have a look at it.

              Comment


              • #82
                Hi Yonathan!

                Some points to clarify for further discussion:

                Ida Rolph was a biochemist by background who became involved in physical therapy. In her 30’s and 40’s, she studied osteopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, and yoga.

                Is it correct that rolfing has evolved into a “gentle, deep muscle balancing process that structurally aligns the body"?

                Is it also accurate that patterns of tension can be released through realignment?

                The following has been attributed to Dr. Rolf:

                "Rolfers make a life study of relating bodies and their fields to the earth and its gravity field, and we so organize the body that the gravity field can reinforce the body's energy field."

                Is this also accurate?

                Comment


                • #83
                  What was your experience with the exercise you learned from the osteopath?
                  Worthless waste of time and effort.

                  What objective methods of would you use to assess or treat another person if there were no electricity?
                  If you mean power provided through electrical wiring to specially designed sockets for plugging in electronic equipment, then I'd say that question is totally irrelevant to how I assess and treat patients other than providing a lit room with a comfortable abient temperature and the convenience of a table that I can raise or lower with a switch.

                  should I attempt to limit what I feel to match my limited intellectual understanding?
                  I think you already are.

                  Can you please name the oldest scientifically valid text which you are aware of?
                  I have no idea what this means. "Validity" as a scientific concept does not apply to texts. Did you mean test? If you meant "text", which based on the context it sounds like you did, I don't think you have a fundamental understanding of scientific inquiry.

                  Based on your imprecise understanding of validity, I don't think you and I can communicate effectively. I can give you some references to read that explain what scientific validity is if you'd like.


                  I only talk smack when I play sports. And then only in response to smack directed at me.
                  John Ware, PT
                  Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
                  "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
                  “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
                  be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    I don't know how people do it...continue to guide people almost seemingly despite themselves.

                    Countless people show up here, proclaim to be science based and them make some bizzare claim that is akin to suggesting the earth is flat...

                    They then attempt to defend their position in spite of mountains of literature which would normally guide a fourth grader.

                    Yanathon,

                    Read more...post less. Then come back and enjoy the discussions.

                    Please.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Yonathan, HB View Post
                      The next totally ungraceful leap of thought: therefore the method you are using is either useless, wrong, nonsense, just placebo or mind control, or dangerous since it can't be measured scientifically. Why?
                      Because my understanding of what I do does not match your understanding. Return to the first assumption.
                      Yonathan,
                      I would not take statements about therapeutic effect as personal insults.
                      It is not the method you are using that is necessarily wrong, but the explanatory model probably is. There is a big difference.

                      I have heard of PT's busting people's ligaments and tearing muscles when testing for range of motion. I know of a lot of people who go to PT's for pain and will almost invariably come back with a rubber band to pull on to strengthen the weak muscle. I've heard of a few PT's that people are really impressed by.
                      Which is exactly why this site exists, as many of the PTs on here have similar issues with their profession's often lacking critical sense regarding its methods.
                      If this is what you think you're up against on here, you really should read the stickies for a while.

                      If you practice seperating method and ideology of what you do, you might not get so easily insulted by questioning of the ideology of what you practice.

                      Take a (cheap and made up, but valid) example from martial arts.
                      If someone routinely punches unexpecting people their stomachs he is likely successfull in bringing them to their knees.
                      He claims this is because his fist making contact with the central-chi disrupts said chi and removes that person's energy, so they go to the ground.

                      Would he be right to feel insulted and like his method was questioned when people pointed out that his reasoning made no sense whatsoever and would not hold up to scientific scrutiny?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Other than a few moments of terseness and sarcasm, I think Yonathan has been relatively respectful of the board members thus far, and he's made some interesting points as well.

                        However, it's apparent to me that the influence of Eastern thought has made it difficult to communicate with him, and he doesn't seem to have a handle on the basics of scientific inquiry and methodology.

                        He's obviously intelligent and well-spoken, so I would also encourage him to read more and post less IF he's interested in understanding what modern scientific discourse may have to offer him in his future intellectual development.

                        Anyway, that's what I would do if a friend of mine referred me to a site where Eastern-thought-influenced subjectivits talked about how and why they do the things they do.

                        That is, if I had the time or interest.
                        John Ware, PT
                        Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists
                        "Nothing can bring a man peace but the triumph of principles." -R.W. Emerson
                        “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot
                        be carried on to success.” -The Analects of Confucius, Book 13, Verse 3

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Yonathan, HB View Post
                          John W.,
                          Doubting someone's ability to work with their hands based solely on the the explanation of what they feel can hardly be considered humble. In fact, in the martial arts world, such a thing is equivalent to what is called "a challenge".
                          What martial arts works are you speaking of here? Given your background and practice of tai chi, taiji or ta'i chi, I would assume you're talking about those types of styles. How would one answer this challenge in your martial arts world. This strikes a chord with me as this type of post/talk usually comes from those steeped in the "mystical arts" (I tried to type that with as much sarcasm as possible). None of these arts are "alive" most do not practice in real world combat scenarios and challenges are akin to a loud and obnoxious dungeons and dragons bout with a lot of noise and pretense but no substance or realism.

                          How would you answer said "challenge" in your martial arts world?
                          Tim Irving DC, MS, LMT

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            [YT]IQrxj82EIBs[/YT]

                            Germane. As is this essay.
                            Last edited by caro; 10-12-2012, 08:31 PM.
                            Carol Lynn Chevrier LMT
                            " The truth is, people may see things differently. But they don't really want to. '' Don Draper.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Yonathan, HB View Post
                              Freshy,

                              If you want to know about Dr. Rolf's work, I would recommend reading her book, not someone else's. And find a good practitioner to feel what the work feels like.
                              I don't think that soft-tissue manipulation is the same as massage, no.
                              If you open her book, you will see her idea of addressing the body in layers. There is nothing beneficial in going deep without having earned permission from the outside layers (how's that for a scientific statement?).
                              Yonathon,
                              I don't have to get the information direct from Ptolemy to understand that his framework of a theory is incorrect, nor is it necessary to read Ida Rolf to understand her model is flawed. Once you have come to see the human body as neurocentric, just as when you come to see the solar system as heliocentric, you see things from an entirely different perspective.

                              "Good" is obviously a subjective term. Who's to say my or Diane's practitioner wasn't great at SI? She was doing all the things I had read about when doing my research. It wasn't her technique, it was the method itself. It wasn't her fault my nervous system didn't approve of what she was doing at the time she was doing it. Why do you think no one has stopped a session with you, yet Diane & I both quit before the end of the series? Maybe your demeanor suits those that have come to see you, maybe your patients decide to endure the discomfort without telling you, maybe they feel that after having sunk in money for 3 sessions & being told it requires 10 sessions they endure due to sunk cost effect. The point is just because no one has not stopped sessions with you doesn't mean really much of anything clinically.
                              Douglas Winn
                              Science Educator/LMT
                              "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."-Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Freshy says:
                                "I don't have to get the information direct from Ptolemy to understand that his framework of a theory is incorrect, nor is it necessary to read Ida Rolf to understand her model is flawed."
                                You're not much of a scholar, if that is the case.

                                Tirving,
                                I brought an example from the martial arts world since I am somewhat familiar with it. I have recently begun Chen style taiji under the guidance of Master Chen Zhonghua, but have studied other arts as well. Fu-jow pai is one school I've studied in, and there is a fairly rich history of accepted challenges.
                                If someone says, I think I can get you with this throw, and I say, I don't think you can. This is simple, we do a test. He tries to throw me, and the result will be clear. If someone says, I don't think your art is worth anything. This can be taken as a challenge, and it is much more serious. And depending on the circumstances, I might accept. The risk of injury in a challenge is extremely high, a test is relatively safe.
                                "I don't think you touch fascia"
                                "Test me"
                                "I think you are just like a magician tricking people"
                                "Challenge me"

                                Max says: "Take a (cheap and made up, but valid) example from martial arts.
                                If someone routinely punches unexpecting people their stomachs he is likely successfull in bringing them to their knees.
                                He claims this is because his fist making contact with the central-chi disrupts said chi and removes that person's energy, so they go to the ground.

                                Would he be right to feel insulted and like his method was questioned when people pointed out that his reasoning made no sense whatsoever and would not hold up to scientific scrutiny?"

                                People talk about their experiences in relation to the culture, time, and tradition they live in. Everything must relate to science in your worldview in order to be of enough value for you to entertain, in other cultures and worldviews, this is different. But you see it from your perspective. You sure you're not a subjectivist?


                                Science, from what I gather, is attempt to interpret an experience of reality in a rational way. Can it interpret reality directly or does it need some kind of an experience from which to gather information?

                                I have a meeting with Bas in 20 years which I have to prepare for.

                                No hard feelings, JohnW.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X