by Tim Brunson, PhD
So-called skepticism in self-styled scientific circles almost always fails to meet the rigorous standards to which they hold those whom they criticize. The quick-draws and loose tongues of these pontifical authorities violate their own rules of conduct. Therefore, many ideas, which are later assumed to be scientifically proven, are too quickly dismissed long before they become the next dogma to which future ideas are scrutinized. Innovations such as Newtonian Physics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and neuroplasticity are currently held concepts, which once were targeted by those who claimed to be the gate keepers of intellectual progress. Fortunately, these innovations weathered the gauntlet of narrow minded guardians of Dogma. However, in reviewing the reasoning that skeptics commonly employ as they unilaterally and with little justification label that with which they have considerable discomfort as being "pseudo-scientific," I have always been amazed by their hypocrisy. It is so obvious to anyone who has ever been trained in the scientific method that their total lack of reasoning fails to employ such.
If whether an idea follows scientific methodology is the correct litmus test for acceptance, then the definition of that concept needs to be fully understood – not just recklessly tossed about by self-styled authorities. Wikipedia.org explains that "scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge." It further states that the method of inquiry must be based on observable, meaning both empirical and measurable, evidence, which is then applied to principles of reasoning.
The latter component I believe refers to types of reasoning such as deductive and inductive. The former shows a conclusion that necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. I call this "general-to-specific." Thus, "All men are mortal" and therefore I must be mortal as I am a man. The latter refers a general conclusion being drawn from individual facts. This I call "specific-to-general." For instance, we may now believe that all individual life forms that we are aware of depend upon water for their existence. Therefore, the presumption is that to be a life form, there must be water. (However, this precludes the existence of any version of life form that does not rely upon water. The artificial life projects at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are apparently refuting our original presumption.)
While it seems that scientific methodology requires a hypothesis, observation of related items, facts, and data, and logical analysis, there appears to be further requirements for conventional vindication. Typically what we are currently looking for is whether or not a scientific research project's results can be replicated and whether such studies will find acceptance among one's peers. Unfortunately, when the first requirement is unequivocally met, it is too often rejected by peer reviewed processes, who too often become the primary enemy as they do little but promote mediocrity. For instance, evidence supporting Newtonian Physics existed for years prior to it gaining wide scientific acceptance. This should not be surprising as it took roughly 100 years of circumnavigating the Earth before many scientific authorities finally accepted that the world was not flat.
One of the chief contributors to the flames of the flagrant skeptics is the complementary practitioner, author, and speaker who voluminously communicates ideas, which fail to be supported by absolutely no – or at least very little – scientific methodology or reasoning. When I look at most of the conventional hypnosis skills, however, this is not the case. If I were to look at claims that hypnosis can help people stop smoking, I would first want a hypothesis and then sufficient observable results. Then I would apply either deductive or inductive reasoning to posit a scientific claim. Therefore, if 90 out of 100 smoking cessation clients in Anniston, Alabama, who underwent my hypnosis protocol either temporarily or permanently stop using tobacco products, I could easily make a valid scientific claim based upon inductive reasoning. And, if my methods and results were replicated by a Chicago, Illinois, hypnotherapist, my hypothesis would be well on its way to achieving scientific credibility.
What is missing at this point is an article published in a peer reviewed article. However, that omission alone is insufficient to establish the fact that I have or have not followed scientific methodology. Nevertheless, it disturbs me that the theories embedded in my now "proven" hypothesis fail to establish causation. That is, why does hypnosis help people quit their smoking habits? What I have established is efficacy without etiology. In other words, I sincerely believe that my methods work despite not being aware of the underlying cause.
The existence of etiology (i.e. the understanding of causal factors) is not a requirement of scientific methodology. Certainly, hypotheses regarding etiology then open up a new line of scientific reasoning. However, surprisingly little of what we consider the results of modern medicine – with all of its peer-accepted surgical and pharmaceutical protocols – is replete with very little etiology. Likewise, psychology, which its practitioners label as the science of the mind, is a vast collection of hypotheses coupled with volumes of documented observations. Unfortunately, modern medicine and psychology are in too many ways not much different than the beliefs of the ancient Greeks who believed that that Zeus daily rode across the sky in his chariot. Again, they had a hypothesis and a whole lot of observations, to which they applied rational logic.
Regardless, I find that many healing practitioners in the medical and psychotherapy professions base their practices on ideas and concepts, which have never been addressed – or adequately addressed – by scientific methodology. One such item is the somewhat mystical belief in a subconscious mind, which is a Western-only philosophical belief upon which much of modern psychotherapy is logically based. (My premise here is that if you take away this unsupported assumption, then a majority of psychotherapeutic theory – such as Freudian psychoanalysis, Ericksonian 'hypnotherapy", Gestalt therapy, etc, becomes mere hogwash. At least, this is true until the underlying assumption of the existence of a subconscious mind is examined and is believed to have passed scientific scrutiny.) Therefore, when those of the healing and helping professions propose an idea, which they expect to gain acceptance within professions who see themselves as scientific – such as medical doctors and psychologists – they absolutely must follow scientific methodology AND base their hypotheses upon other previously accepted ones that also have achieved such stature.
To understand this further, let's look at what is known as Emotional Freedom Techniques. To many observers, this seems like at rather silly process during which a person taps various parts of their hands, head, and torso while reciting a rather inane mantra, such as "I love and accept myself." The theory proposed originally by Gary Craig, was that this procedure can be used to effectively cure a wide range of psychological and even some medical problems. Again, he has a hypothesis, there are a tremendous number of case studies, and there is logical reasoning regarding results. EFT results have been replicated all over the world. Therefore, the basic requirements of scientific methodology have been met. There is no – or little acceptable – etiology, which makes it on par with most psychology theories and a good amount of modern medicine. There also are very little in the peer-reviewed literature arena – although the research conducted by members of the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology has seriously endeavored to correct this shortcoming. (Unfortunately, peer-reviewed journals, which serve as an obstacle to scientific inquiry, are normally reluctant to publish any ideas that don't meet their rigid preconceptions.) My conclusion is that EFT does meet the requirements of scientific methodology. This does not mean that further scientific inquiry is not warranted. However, no credible scientific researcher will ever state that such heuristic work is unnecessary. The paucity of peer reviewed documented research and a firm etiology does not warrant the EFT skeptics' claims that EFT is not scientific. In fact, such a claim merely establishes the fact of their ignorance of scientific methodology.
So, now I must finally turn to the role and behavior of the skeptic. Today I read an article on Robert T. Cole's Skeptic.com. The article was specifically about EFT. I printed the article so I could blacken out the emotional-laden words such as gimmick, quack, so-called, etc. to see if his writing had any validity regarding scientific reasoning. I found it absurd that he single-handedly attempts to denigrate the work of others under the guise of "critical thinking" when what he is doing is nothing more than an emotional attack. Essentially, what he does is hypocritically use unscientific methodology and undocumented one-sided statements to belittle anything that is not within his realm of comfort. I fail to see any science in Cole's approach. Unfortunately, he does this by claiming that what he is doing is "scientific" and what Craig is doing is "pseudoscience."
Let me give you some examples. In the article he states that what Craig achieves with EFT are due completely to the ability to relax subjects so that their natural healing processes can create the cure – for which the EFT practitioner takes credit. Deductively Cole's reasoning is flawed as he implies that anyone who is relaxed and asked to repeat the EFT statements would naturally be cured. No evidence is given to support Cole's statement. He states that the relaxation that EFT causes (which is not always the case) results in a heightened suggestibility that relieves the stress and allows self-healing to occur. If Cole could take anyone of the situations highlighted in Craig's videos – such as a strong fear of heights phobia – and use relaxation and suggestion as the only technique or showed a person who was intentionally stressed during the EFT procedure and not "cured," then I might give him some credit. Of course, this is provided that he was able to sufficiently replicate his results to that his findings were statistically significant. Unfortunately, neither Cole nor anyone else has done this. Conversely, Craig has a tremendous number of documented case studies involving real people who can support his claims.
Please note that placebo-related results is Cole's hypothesis. However, it is so obvious how he proceeds in coming up with his somewhat illogical conclusions. First, note to justify his hypothesis he starts out his line of reasoning that his view is based upon "what traditional healers have known for millennia." What he is saying that his entire premise logic starts up with an unsupported premise. Furthermore, he provides no evidence that relaxation necessarily causes suggestibility – a condition that also happens under high stress such as a trauma – and that the bodies heal themselves. While he fails to present any documentation supporting either initial premises, supporting documentation regarding empirical or measurable results, or rational explanation of the results that he is claiming. In short, what he fails to do is use scientific methodology as his basis for criticizing the lack of scientific basis for that which he claims to skeptically refute. Hypocritically he uses pseudoscientific arguments – which are emotional laden and devoid of any recognized system of logic – to claim that Craig's results are unscientific. The humor in this does not escape me.
What skeptics like Cole continually do is use emotional (which is essentially an aspect of lower reptilian brain – non-cognitive processes) arguments to attack ideas with which they fail to feel (again, limbic response) comfortable. They may point out a failure in the process, procedure, or theories of the target of their ire. In the EFT case, Cole is attacking Craig's lack of etiology. Unfortunately, a lack of causal theory is not a justification for rejecting scientifically supportable ideas. If it was, the US Food and Drug Administration would never approve any medicine for marketing. (The FDA approves medications based upon observable results rather than the certainty of the associated etiology.) Therefore, Cole's arguments – even once his emotional diatribe is edited out – lack absolutely any merit. In the case of Craig's EFT methods, he has clearly satisfied the fundamental requirements of scientific methodology. Remember, like any psychological school, EFT is merely a hypothesis. As such, it should be further scrutinized and modified immediately upon new evidence to the contrary emerging. If it is to be valid scrutiny, it must be one of a scientific nature.
Any delusion that the emotional and half-baked unscientific approaches of self-styled skeptics have any value must be dispelled. Although healthy skepticism must always exist within the scientific community, it must be applied using the same methodology that it requires of others. Unfortunately, over recent years I have read way too many blogs, websites, and comments by editors – many of which have PhD's from prestigious universities and control equally reputable publications – who recklessly label innovative ideas as "pseudoscience" regardless of the fact that they fail to use scientific reasoning to do so. While history eventually labels such authorities as buffoons, the beneficial side effect is that scientific innovators are thus compelled to assure that their ideas must endure higher standards, which eventually will lead to their acceptance.
Posted: 02/08/2011
