Barry's SuperBlog » Phenomenon

Lessons for Science from the Mesmer experience

Barry Mapp — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:17:07 +0000

The story of healing – from Mesmer to the PresentIn the last blog, I mentioned that most Doctor’s and Scientists appear to practise ‘scientism’ rather than ‘science’. This is NOT a new phenomenon and we can see that this was often the case back in the 1700’s. Let’s take a look at the story of healing from Mesmer and see if much has changed in regard to how scientists perceive healers and healing. As you read on, focus on what I said previously about scientism – that when practicing scientism, if the observations don’t fit the belief held, than the observations are either (1) ignored (2) attacked as being false or some ‘magic trick’ (3) manipulated to fit the belief.Because ‘hands-on healing’ (or distance healing or other types of healing) doesn’t fit comfortably with any Newtonian Model of Science, doctors practicing scientism will defend their Scientific Beliefs (using methods 1,2,or 3) rather than pay proper attention to what is actually happening and so don’t properly observe and have no inclination to investigate what they see. Most doctors will simply say ‘there isn’t any evidence that healing works’. In this example below with a French Royal Commission set up in 1784 to investigate Mesmer’s Healing Technique, there was clear evidence that healing worked at some level – as most of the patients got better. What wasn’t clear was HOW it worked and a true scientist would therefore want to set up experiments to ascertain the ‘how’. Instead these commissioners used their expertise to DENY that Mesmer had demonstrated any real effects worthy of further exploration. Only one of the scientists a botanist called (Jussieu) appeared to value science rather above scientism. See what you think -The story of healing – from Mesmer to the PresentMesmer was a scientist and healer living in the mid-1700’s. Using a technique he described as “animal magnetism” (initially using magnets until he discovered that just using his hands had the same effect), Mesmer’s healing work became fashionable in Paris but irritated eminent physicians and scientists of the time. A Royal Commission, chaired Benjamin Franklin, was set up by Louis XV1 in 1784 to investigate Mesmer’s method. The Commission’s Report when completed labelled Mesmer a Charlatan. The crucial evidence cited against his method was that blindfold patients (Mesmer used a “hands off”or “hands-over” healing technique) did not demonstrate the patient bodily rigour that usually happened during his regular treatments. The fact that patients behaved differently blindfolded was evidence enough for the Commission to report that this technique was a sham (though in the blindfolded cases the patients also improved). The Commission’s viewpoint was that “all could be explained by the patient’s imagination”. A minority report by the botanist Jussieu dissented from this view and he felt that sufficient evidence had been provided “to make us admit the possibility of the existence of a fluid, or agent, which is communicated from one man to another, and sometimes exercises on the latter a sensible action”.Who practised the good science? Franklin or Jussieu? Which theory better predicted the facts – the unseen magnetic-type force proposed by Mesmer, or the Commission’s theory of imagination? And if imagination was the key, why was this not explored further. Why did the scientists not remain curious as to how this allowed patients to get better (most were patient’s who were put forward by the physicians themselves that had not been helped by the physician’s treatments). The Commission’s findings raised many questions for valid scientific investigation but the results were merely used for the purpose of discrediting Mesmer and not to advance scientific learning.Would a Commission investigating healing conclude anything different today? Probably not! We have some recent possible pointers. In the last 10 years at least one American State was reported to have banned healing (specifically a form called therapeutic touch) in their Hospitals, because researchers “disproved” the theory upon which it was based even though it appeared to have beneficial effects (animal magnetism in 18th Century, energy fields in the 20th Century). Again not long ago in the UK there was the “scandal” of a healer and the England football team. The healer was “sacked” because of her beliefs and not because she was ineffective in accelerating players recover from injury. Coming Next: More on the England football Team Healer (who was sacked), as well a description of some simple experiments that open-minded scientists around the world could quickly and easily undertake in order to validate that healing is for real and that it is worthy of an extensive input of funding for research to the potential benefit of all.

Tweet This Post

Scientists and Healers need Open Minds

Barry Mapp — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:02:45 +0000

On the need for scientists and healers to have an open mind(adapted from an article “The Science of Healing and the Healing of Science” published in Resource Magazine September 2005, Author: Barry Mapp)We don’t realise how much our existing theories and beliefs prevent us from seeing new things clearly.How the Scientist’s beliefs stop them seeing clearlyA principle of science is that ‘what actually happens’ comes before ‘how do things happen’. Thus the first stage of science comes from observation and experience. Then comes a hypothesis (a preliminary belief), then come experiments to see if the hypothesis holds water. What many scientists actually practice is not ‘science’ but ‘scientism’ which is the opposite of science – where the belief (the need to know how things happen) comes first and observation (what happens) comes second. Thus when practicing scientism, if the observations don’t fit the belief held, then the observations are either (1) ignored (2) attacked as being false or some ‘magic trick’ (3) manipulated to fit the belief. Because ‘hands-on healing’ (or distance healing or other types of healing) doesn’t fit comfortably with the Newtonian Model of Science, doctors practicing scientism defend their theory (using methods 1,2,or 3) and don’t properly observe and investigate the potential phenomenon. Most doctors will say ‘there isn’t any evidence that healing works’.However any doctor who can suspend judgement about healers and healing long enough to search the world’s literature, will find plenty of published material (but not in the Lancet or the British Medical Journal) demonstrating that healing has “medical” effects worthy of further investigation. So we have to assume that most doctors practice scientism.How the Healer’s beliefs stop them seeing clearlyEqually “healers” are often unaware how their theories and beliefs prevent them from seeing things clearly and they too must be prepared to change their beliefs if they want to move healing forward. Scientists and healers suffer from the same problem. They both use outdated concepts or “out-of-context” theories to explain how things happen. (see more about unhelpful ways of thinking here). Healers are often using theories and explanations which go back thousands of years, whilst openly criticising the scientists who cling to Newton’s ideas that are much more recent. We need a pragmatic view of theory. No explanation or model is ever complete or “true”. What is important therefore, is not to argue over who or what is “right”, but to find explanations or metaphors that are useful, that most people can accept, and that allows predictions to be made and theory to be tested. For example, some healers say that the cause of illness is “evil spirits”. A few hundred years ago or more this may have been a reasonable theory. However today this metaphor is outdated. Other healers invoke their religion, reincarnation, or their “spirit guides” as integral to their healing but none of these are essential to what they do. These beleifs simply provides a stream of potential red herrings (and an uncomfortable feeling) for the scientist. If healers want their form of healing to become mainstream, and thus part of everyday medical practice, they have to conceive explanations that are aligned with present day context and knowledge (even if some of that knowledge is “wrong”). As Newton’s Thinking is still predominant in science, the healer must speak with metaphors that the scientist understands (rather than jumping on the Quantum Theory bandwagon as most are doing – a bandwagon that has yet to starting rolling in the corridors of power)Coming next: Lessons for science from the Mesmer experience

Tweet This Post

What is Politics Anyway?

Barry Mapp — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:17:53 +0000

What is Politics anyway? One definition

I have seen politics described simply as the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed as a phenomenon in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

When I worked as a Head of a Biochemistry Department in the NHS, I was very aware of this thing called politics. Heads of Departments seemed more concerned with building up their empires (often called Ivory Towers) and doing as much back-stabbing as possible to ensure that it was they and not another department that got the extra member of staff or the extra piece of equipment. The fact that one piece of equipment might make a real difference to patient care and another piece wouldn’t have anything like the same impact, did not seem to matter – it had to be their department that got the funds.

So it is possible to see this thing called politics happening everywhere but that does not mean that it has to be the only way that groups can work together – it’s just one way. If we have a system (whether in a Ladies Institute, a business, workplace or Government) where we select for the characteristics we feel we need in leader (macho, aggressive, manipulative, bonus-incentivised, fire-fighter, hero etc?) and what we finish up with is a conniving, untrustworthy political infighter – then surely we have the wrong model and we are choosing the wrong characteristics for good leaders. (and if we wish to select Innerpreneurial-Spirited and High-Emotionally-Intelligent personnel for Leadership positions then for starters we need to get rid of our obsession with paper qualifications and interview checklists).

Get Back

So getting back to the idea that Politics is simply the process by which groups of people make decisions. I would quibble with this as a definition and reframe as ‘politics is simply one process, one model by which groups of people make decisions. There are other ways and some of these ways will be explored over time in this blog.

Whether some of these ‘better ways’ of working could be effective in a Government or a Parliament situation is untested. But surely we couldn’t do any worse than what we have seen in the last few decades? The farcical scenes we see on the television as the cream of political life engage in the thing they call debate.

Come together right now. Speak up!

So the movers-and-shakers in our Society need to come together, to speak up and speak out and to provide impetus to explore ways that groups of people make decisions in a different way. And perhaps to help conceive something akin to a ‘Non-Political Party’.

From Where does Government take its Lead?

In the past it seems that Government has often taken its lead from the darkside of business (lets just call it the macho, competitive side) and they take advice from those very same people they harangue when they receive their obscene financial bonuses. We all know that the Country’s most effective leaders are just getting on quietly and effectively with running a business. Government needs to look really deep below the surface to find these guys and girls because you won’t see them on programmes like The Apprentice (and by the way, would you hire Alan Sugar?) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192694/So-hire-Alan-Sugan-Mr-Brown-But-special-investigation-reveals-Mr-Sugars-chequered-career-raises-questions-suitability-role-model-businessmen.html

In yesterday’s blog there was this quote: “A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.” ~ James Freeman Clarke.

We need the Statesman Mentallity

We need the Statesman mentality now in our Parliament. We need independently minded thinkers. We need something different, tinkering is no longer the medium term option. So how do we ensure we fill our parliaments with statesman not politicians? Can the real Leader’s in this country (those who build a business for the long-term benefits not the short-term gains) and other movers-and-shakers in society stand up, help to guide, design and agree a way that we can fill our Parliaments with Good Leaders and Statesmen not the ‘claim-as-much-on-expenses-as-we-can-and-blow-the-taxpayer’ career politicians. One thing to note is that we might be seeing the first signs of is the demise of the career politician. So expect a fight-back – they won’t go quietly.

As a voter, do you want to be represented by a system that is political by its very nature?

Coming up next:

All political parties are the same – no real choice

Tweet This Post