Cranial Sacral Therapy - whats do you think?

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by loyalonehk, Sep 14, 2006.

  1. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Sorry hulong but the simple way to end a debate is to simply stop taking part if you don't want to be part of the discussion. You don't get to make a post and then tell someone else not to reply to your points. I will be brief however...

    You revived a thread from several years ago from someone who posted a total of 8 times on MAP and attempted to refute the criticisms slip had supplied. Of course the original poster is not still around... and I sincerely doubt that your response was just for his/her benefit. That doesn't make your arguments any better/worse or any more or less relevant. If you don't want to continue the discussion that's your choice but after reviving a several year dead thread I think it is a bit hypocritical to suggest that others shouldn't reply to your post because the original poster is gone.

    Now to your other points and quickly... yes LOTR contains symbollism and morals and messages applicable to real life that has nothing to do with whether it is a fantasy novel or not. You asked if it really matters how or why healing occurs I would say 'yes-obviously it does' because if no-one cared about how medicine worked then we would not be progressing further in our ability to treat illnesses effectively. Completely contrary to what you suggest caring about the real cause of illness does not 'doom us to repeat the mistakes of the past' but the exact opposite! On a similiar note you asked how I could suggest modern medicine treats the real cause of illness- simply because it has reams and reams of verifiable evidence and experiements that proves it correct. We can actually see viruses and bacteria now thanks to science. We know what occurs in cells in the body- we can see inside living bodies with various scanning tools and so on. We know the modern medical model corresponds with reality because well... it is demonstrated over and over and over again.

    In regards to modern medicine only just discovering what you eat can impact a childs behaviour... Research is constantly ongoing in such area's but obviously doctors have known for centuries that what you eat impacts your health and your mental attitude. The inventor of Cornflakes even knew that! Just because science is still researching such topics doesn't mean that nothing was known about the topic beforehand. When for instance I see a study published linking childhood obesity to lack of physical exercise I don't think researchers have just made this connection but that they have say for instance produced a study to examine the effect in more detail.

    I am entrenched in the view that medicine should have evidence for its efficacy before being promoted and that people who make claims such as CS therapy advocates should be asked for evidence before their claims are accepted. Having now read several published articles and websites dedicate to CS therapy it is abundantly clear to me that it has been debunked and that those advocating it do so in the same way that creationists and ID proponents do i.e. by ignoring the evidence. The article I linked to by the way addresses in detail all the speciific points you raised in your previous reply and asked me to explain.

    Well that didn't end up so brief but I respect your choice to continue this discussion or not. If your fed up no problem just don't reply, I won't be offended.
     
  2. Ad McG

    Ad McG Troll-killer Supporter

    CKava - You are saying that the articles address his points, but slip has made it perfectly clear that unless there is scientific proof IN FAVOUR of CST then he will remain a skeptic, as will I. Anecdotal evidence is all well and good, but if you have ever experienced a healing scammer you will know how far they will go to protect themselves and their practice. I watched an expose on a certain British "spritual surgeon" who did physically absolutely nothing for patients, but the placebo effect was so strong they felt they were being given a good service. This is all well and good, but when you're being charged a LOT of money for a mind trick, it is a con more than anything else.

    I'm not saying that CST is a complete con because I am still open to some of the theory, but the fact that all of this has remained completely unproven and most of the evidence lies towards DISPROVING the very foundation of this treatment, I have to remain very skeptical. I prefer to lay my trust in people who I know aren't out to make a buck or people who are following the beliefs of such individuals.
     
  3. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Sorry Adam I should have been clearer I meant the article addresses the points hulong raised and shows how scientific evidence proves pretty much every one of them false or to be irrelevant to healing not slips article.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
  4. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Valued Member

    Cst

    Not what I'm arguing at all; what I am arguing is that some forms of experience are incommensurate with the kind of scientific rigour you are demanding.

    My "nice little list" (you are verging on ad hominum argument here) was intended to be representative of basic, foundational experiences that can't be proven one way or the other. They are by their nature anecdotal and will always remain so. I am happy to admit that CST should remain in this category. At issue with arguing "the difference between the anecdotal and scientifically credible evidence to support medical claims" is that the word "medical" is already loaded with meaning.

    Maybe not so subtle, maybe not so crucial...This is the crux of the argument, is it not?

    Again, you are brushing up against ad hominum argument here (i.e., that I'm arguing merely because I am upset). I'm not - and neither am I upset.

    I don't follow you here. It makes more of a difference to a person in pain that CST works than if Swiss cheese tastes good.

    I will agree however that anecdotal evidence will only carry you so far: what matters is that the person who has heard the acecdotal evidence make up his or her own mind based upon getting his or her own treatment. I brought Vince's Xing Yi up because I, personally, can't imagine anyone not being impressed by it. But that's just me - anyone is free to make up their own mind. By the same token, I was happy to admit above that CST is not "medical" in the sense that it is not scientifically credible - but just as happy to admit that in my experience I have seen many people in chronic pain repond positively to therapy. Is this any less "medical?" That issue of incommensurability...

    Best,

    Steve
     
  5. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Exactly.
    Anecdotal evidence... which is exactly what 'some forms of experience' is... is not scientifically sound. Not for medicine. It may be considered acceptable for new age gurus, quacks and snake oil salesmen... but it's not acceptable in the medical world... it's not acceptable in the academic peer review journal world.
    It doesn not cut it as far as science is concerned.

    That's the whole point.

    Cranial Sacral therapy isn't at this point scientifically or medically valid. It hasn't and doesn't stand up to scientific methodology and regimen.


    Oh jeez, relax... nice little list... means just that. If you can't read that as literally as it was posted or without getting defensive and reading all sorts of stuff into it... then that's your problem not mine.

    Fair enough. I agree... because for all the people posting in support of CST I've yet to see a single credible link or citation that shows it's anything other than anecdotal.

    Loaded. Maybe... vetted definitely. When something is referred to as medically valid then you can be sure that it's at least been pushed forward on more than just anecdotal evidence.

    That those supporting CST didn't seem to get it came off as that it might have been subtle as they... didn't get it. As for crucial... odd that you're saying it's 'maybe not so crucial' but in the same breath you on about it being the crux of the argument. Strange.


    My my... how syllogistic of you. :p


    In the context of whether or not CST is scientifically valid... CST is on par with Swiss Cheese in terms of being a valid medical treatment.

    That's nice (please don't drag out that old chesnut ad hominum again)... but I'm not arguing against that.

    Great... then we're in agreeance... CST isn't scientifically credible, nor medically credible... but is in fact backed up by a veritable plethora of anecdotal evidence. That's fine for those who want to run with that... that's their choice... but I think it's at least important they understand it's not scientifically or medically credible. :)
     
  6. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Valued Member

    Cst

    We appear to be running circles inside of each other...

    The fact that an experience is incommensurable with scientific rigour does not make it any less valid - just scientifically less valid. At issue is the claim by some that "scientifically less valid" means "invalid."

    Best,

    Steve
     
  7. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    What's worth noting however is that most pracitioners fail to even admit that it's claims are not supported by science. For instance on every website I've been to I've found that the veneer of science is being used to promote the therapy as valid. I have also found that most pracitioners seem unwilling or uninterested in any scientific literature on the topic except for single old discredited study which supports their claims.
     
  8. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Invalid in the medical and scientific sense. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. At any rate... it can become a semantics fiasco. Suffice it to say it's not back up by any credible scientific or medical data. Beyond that I'm sure there will be any number of people willing to trust it based on mere anecdote. Which is fine really... as long as they know the score on the other points.
     
  9. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Valued Member

    Cst

    I think that most people will understand that CST is not Western, allopathic medicine as most people experience it today: when is the last time you got a thorough physical exam by your M.D.? By the same token, I don't recognize myself among the "new age gurus, quacks and snake oil salesmen" that you describe above, and about whom they should know the "score."

    Since Kuhn (and, arguably, as far back as Kant) epistemology has had to address the problem that Newton's universe can be explained but not understood. I would argue that disciplines such as CST can be understood but not explained. If either of us has changed a single mind here I would be very surprised.

    Best,

    Steve
     
  10. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    But hey you managed to wangle Kuhn, Kant and Newton into the mix... by all means don't stop now! And hey... epistemology rolled off the tongue... go for broke baby!! Go for broke!! :p


    I wasn't aware that changing minds was really the point of the discussion.

    I was actually more interested in getting across the point that CST isn't scientifically or medically valid or reputable. Which I suppose was rather apparent since those who were in support of it couldn't manage to post a single credible citation in regards to CST.

    Why not present both sides to a story and let the reader make up their own mind? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2007
  11. Ad McG

    Ad McG Troll-killer Supporter

    Sorry, I did skim over your post a little bit and I was more addressing hulong than you.

    A classic scam artist trick - use selective science to back up your claim but ignore the plethora of evidence that goes against it. Con artist "healers" have been doing it for years in an attempt to give security to skeptics who have gone in because of a reference through a friend who is more of a believer. It's easy to see how some people do get conned into things like this but at the end of the day, science is science.
     
  12. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Valued Member

    Cst

    Right. Why not respond to my points instead of restating yours over and over again? We could start with the issue of commensurabilty and work from there.

    Really? Aren't you concerned that some poor, deluded soul opts for CST for his prostrate cancer instead of getting the chemotherapy and radiation therapy that he should be getting?

    Got it. No, really - I got it. What I have been arguing about is the way that "medicine" has been defined entirely as a naturalistic phenomenon.

    If you don't think that I've been presenting both sides of the story then you really haven't been paying attention.

    Best,

    Steve
     
  13. hulong

    hulong New Member

    Groove-tastic!

    Wow! I am amazed at all the responses. Thanks for the complement on how I was being so groove-tastic at how I weaved together my thoughts - part of how the mind of a taiji hippie works.

    I also didn't realize others were really listening; it seemed like a "discussion" only between CKava and I. I would have been more concise (and should have been from the start) instead of so long-winded if I knew others where there.

    Yes, I must admit that CST evidence is sketchy and strange. I should have come out and said this simply instead of a whole defensive story. My whole argument is really is this:

    It is not that CST is not proven, but just not proven by the mindset and beliefs of modern thinking. Modern thought is just another way of seeing the world, but not, as those who elevate the scientific method above all others, the end all, be all of truth.

    And, yes, neither are any classical traditions, yet I followed such a path into these practices because they seemed to resonate with me, but more than that, they seem to me to be much more inclusive of mind, body and spirit, and the possibility of perception coloring truth, than many so-called scientists.

    That's all.
     
  14. hulong

    hulong New Member

    And one more little thing

    And just a quick addendum:

    Remember, I did say I thought the people who try to lay scientific claims to CST work (and in fact, any classical work, but that's another post), are "crazy". This, I believe, is because you simply cannot proove a method from one level of consciousness with the methods of another.

    [I am not saying CST is a higher or lower level, either - just heading off any misunderstanding at the pass!]

    This is why claims of energy work, and Qi Gong, and a host of other healing classical healing methods just don't sound right to our ears. The practitioners often do not realize that the terms they are using have a different definition under different contexts of perception. So they sound nuts. Maybe it comes from a need for healers not to feel on the periphery of society, and the fear of not being mainstream themselves.

    Just a thought.
     
  15. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Your points have received all the response they merit. If you can't figure that out... go back and read again. ;)

    Niiiiiice....
    I'll finish off my drink while you slip into something more rehtorical. :p
    Again... like I said the point of the conversation wasn't about changing peoples minds. It may have been your agenda... so hey knock yourself out there champ.

    Reading comprehension is your friend. Try it sometime. ;)

    ROTFLMAO!!!
    Yes we can see you were doing so well at presenting both sides of the story that you had to jump in and enlist Kuhn, Kant and Newton... you were so busy doing that your epistemology slipped out. :D
     
  16. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
    Reach back and untie the knot in your panties. You'll feel more comfortable. :D
     
  17. slipthejab

    slipthejab Hark, a vagrant! Supporter

    Riiiiiiiiiiiight..... had your dose of Chi lately?
     
  18. lhommedieu

    lhommedieu Valued Member

    Cst

    I'll tell you what: you write a sentence or two that describes the merits and limits of Kuhn's theory of incommensurability with respect to understanding the development of modern Western allopathic medicine, and I'll be satisfied that you're not being deliberately rude to me in lieu of a response that indicates that you understand what I've been saying.

    Otherwise, this is a waste of effort. A recent (last night) death in the family and work constraints place a limit on how much time I can spend on the forum.

    Best wishes for your continued martial arts success.

    Steve
     

Share This Page