Podcast: Play in new window | Download
In the first of a series of interviews with therapists who practice alternative therapeutic techniques, Pat Heavren of Energy Medicine Wellness in Woodbridge, Connecticut joins me for a discussion on the practice of energy medicine. See what you think and leave me an audio message or question about the interview.
Helpful email addresses:
- Energy Medicine Wellness – link to Pat Heavren’s center in Woodbridge, Connecticut.
- The Four Winds – link mentioned by Pat in the interview where you can learn more about Alberto Villoldo.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
This lady was merely pushing pseudoscience. I felt like I was listening to an infomercial for The Secret. If you want psychology to be thought of as a valid science among the public, then you need to differentiate psychology from the pseudoscience that this guest was promoting.
In episode 18, where you discuss the limitations of the scientific method, what alternative do we have? Thinking logically, being open-minded to evidence, and simply asking for evidence are the opposite of limiting. They give us a window to the truth. This lady simply made claims about healing that many people will now pay for, because no one speaks up against it.
The scientific method isn’t about taking a stand against these energy healing claims without knowledge about them. It’s about gaining knowledge, partially by asking for evidence that it exists & works. There’s zero evidence in favor of these phenomenon.
Also I disagree about this notion that politeness and an inquiry to the truth are mutually exclusive. As a person of science, you shouldn’t resort to something like an ad hominem attack, but you can disagree with someone while explaining while you think they’re wrong. To me, it came off as justification to avoid basic dialogue (with potentia disagreement) that I feel more scientists should partake in to educate the non-scientific public.
You’re right, and you make many good points about how asking for evidence is far from being limiting or rude. My only “excuse” is that this was one of my early episodes (in fact, it was my first interview) and I was reluctant to ask some, in retrospect, very reasonable questions about evidence. In the episode on EMDR (episode 19) I asked questions about evidence. However, I received an unconvincing response to these questions. In part because of these experiences I was especially interested in talking with Dr. Scott Lilienfeld (episode 41) – an outspoken critic on EMDR. I think you’ll find that episode, and the ones on the Mozart Effect, have a different tone.
Again, what can I say – your points are valid. I hope you’ll understand my explanation and check out more of the later episodes.
Michael
It’s funny to see you mention episode 19. After I typed out my concerns above, I listened to episode 19, and found myself thinking you made a concerted effort to question your guest’s claims.
Great podcast, I still have a lot of episodes to listen to, but I have really enjoyed the ones on Erikson’s stages of life.
I appreciate you keeping an open mind future podcasts. The Erikson episode came out good I think. Also, if you’re into Erikson don’t forget to watch the much later video episode (number 68) in which I created a mnemonic device to help students and teachers remember all 8 of his stages.
Thanks again for your comments,
Michael