Reiki

SkepticOne

This is another one that I think would be fairly easy to test or at least claims concering it. With reiki, no physical touch is involved, but it is believed that a sort of universal life force energy known as ki flows through the practitioner into the recipient. Some people believe they can feel the "ki" as it goes into them from a reiki session and it is this claim that I think could be tested.

The testing would work as follows: the person who claims to feel the ki energy and seeing whether they can distinguish between a) a genuine reiki practitioner b) a sham practitioner c) nothing present.

This would not be a clinical trial of alleged healing powers reiki which would be out of reach of the amateur.

Any volunteers from the reiki community want to come forward and confound the skeptics?

littlebug

I have level I and though I don't adhere to the principles i know that "something" is happening. I have my own thoughts on this but that's not what you're asking here.

I have also received reiki many times and sometimes I feel something and sometimes I don't (more often don't). I'm not sure you would find people who would say they feel it every time which might make your experiment difficult.

Edited to remove the first paragraph as I couldn't find reference for what I was saying... in other words i was talking sh1te

Whispered

The problem is that a lot, if not most practitioners, will look at that and think that they have nothing to prove. Which is true. It is my belief it works, people I have done it on are happy that it works. I personally feel no need to try to prove to someone that it does just so I can say "told you so".

Also, as with all things spiritual, a non believer will rationalise everything so while they may have a reiki experience, they will say that they didn't and put any feelings down to an expectation. It's a very hard thing to test.

An open sceptic would probably be a different matter though.

Another thing with reiki is that, going in with the mentality of "I want to show that there is something to this" is just feeding the ego, which goes against almost everything reiki teaches.

In the interest of research, why doesn't an open sceptic here on the forum go to a practitioner and report back in a non biased way?

EDIT: Littlebug is right in that you don't always feel something. I have found this to be the exception rather than the rule, but it depends on the client.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

Also, as with all things spiritual, a non believer will rationalise everything so while they may have a reiki experience, they will say that they didn't and put any feelings down to an expectation. It's a very hard thing to test.

No, the test would try to remove the element of expectation. To the greatest extent possible the person receiving would not know who it was (or indeed whether a person is present).

An open sceptic would probably be a different matter though.

Another thing with reiki is that, going in with the mentality of "I want to show that there is something to this" is just feeding the ego, which goes against almost everything reiki teaches.

No, it would simply be an open-minded attempt to establish the truth of a claim.

In the interest of research, why doesn't an open sceptic here on the forum go to a practitioner and report back in a non biased way?

What happens if I go and feel nothing for the duration of the treatment? Would that prove anything one way or the other?

EDIT: Littlebug is right in that you don't always feel something. I have found this to be the exception rather than the rule, but it depends on the client.

All that would be needed would be some ability to feel the effect above what would be expected by chance.

Skeptic_Desu

I have had reiki done in the past and didn't feel anything that can't be explained by the placebo effect. However that is just anecdotal evidence thus meaningless.
What does have meaning is that reiki has never been proven in a properly controlled test to be effective for any condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki#Scientific_research


@ skepticone wasn't there a similar test done by an nine year old that debunked Theraputic touch?

SkepticOne

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

I have had reiki done in the past and didn't feel anything that can't be explained by the placebo effect. However that is just anecdotal evidence thus meaningless.
What does have meaning is that reiki has never been proven in a properly controlled test to be effective for any condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki#Scientific_research


@ skepticone wasn't there a similar test done by an nine year old that debunked Theraputic touch?

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch"]source[/URLThis is probably the one:

In 1998, Emily Rosa, at 11 years of age, became the youngest person to have a paper accepted by the Journal of the American Medical Association for her study of therapeutic touch, which debunked the claims of TT practitioners. Her study consisted of testing 21 practitioners of TT to determine their ability to detect the aura they claim surrounds everyone. The practitioners stood on one side of a cardboard screen, while Emily stood on the other. The practitioners then placed their hands through holes in the screen. Emily then flipped a coin to determine which of the practitioner's hands she would place hers near (without, of course, touching the hand). The practitioners then were to indicate if they could sense her biofield, and where her hand was. Although all of the participants had asserted that they would be able to do this, the actual results did not support their assertions. After repeated trials the practitioners had succeeded in locating her hand at a rate not significantly different from chance. They were right 44% of the time, slightly worse than chance.

In a way Reiki should be easier to test since it does not involve physical touch.

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

No, the test would try to remove the element of expectation. To the greatest extent possible the person receiving would not know who it was (or indeed whether a person is present). .

Oh I see, well the person would be aware of someone in the room as you tend to move around a bit to get to different parts of the body. Do you mean a few different people, a few mins each moving around the body, one of them a practitioner. Person on the bed to say which one it was. Repeated a few times on different people to rule out a lucky guess?

SkepticOne wrote: »

No, it would simply be an open-minded attempt to establish the truth of a claim.
.

I know for you it would be, maybe for some practitioners but I can rule myself out straight away as I know I would want to "prove" myself. Which would be the wrong state of mind totally for me to do a session.

SkepticOne wrote: »

What happens if I go and feel nothing for the duration of the treatment? Would that prove anything one way or the other?.

With one session I would say no, maybe not, as it happens that sometimes you feel nothing. It would also depend on how you feel about it. Would you hope not to feel anything, or are you genuinely open to it. This would have an effect on whether you will allow yourself to feel anything without writing it off. If you are genuine, then I would say, within 3 sessions with a good practitioner (as with eveything you have chancers) you will definitely feel an improvement in your energy levels and feel things which might be difficult to explain away.

My first reiki session was something I decided to try out, see if there was anything to it. Before it started I apologised in advance and said "I find it hard to relax, so if I don't react to this it's me not you" I hopped on the bed and closed my eyes. Next thing I knew I was awake an hour later. That, to me was something. How does someone make you fall asleep that quickly? (room was moderate temperature, bed was a massage table, insense was nag champa which is available everywhere and does not make you drowsy).

She also pinpointed a few issues I had at the time, as well as a strained relationship.

I was very happy and utterly convinced by my first session. Nothing earth shattering happened, but it was enough to convince me initially.

SkepticOne wrote: »

All that would be needed would be some ability to feel the effect above what would be expected by chance.

What would you expect to feel by chance? What is the minimum that would have to happen to make you wonder?

Skeptic_Desu

SkepticOne wrote: »

URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch"]source[/URLThis is probably the one:In a way Reiki should be easier to test since it does not involve physical touch.

That's the one. Saw her on Penn and Teller.


It's funny how reiki practitioners don't have to prove anything but all new actual medical procedures need years of testing and review before they're let any near a person.

Whispered

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

That's the one. Saw her on Penn and Teller.


It's funny how reiki practitioners don't have to prove anything but all new actual medical procedures need years of testing and review before they're let any near a person.

How many reiki parctitioners do you know who can prescribe antibiotics, give injections, mend broken bones etc?

EDIT: If this thread is going to descend into this then I'm out. I'm not interested in a row.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

How many reiki parctitioners do you know who can prescribe antibiotics, give injections, mend broken bones etc?

I can point to a few that claim to be able to do a whole bunch of stuff they can't.

http://www.thehealingpages.com/CaseHistories/PhysicalConditions/CaseHxList.html

http://www.reiki-ireland.com/reiki-energy.htm

http://www.reikifederationireland.com/Articles/ReikiResearchInHospitals.html

Whispered

Well seeing as how this thread is in the skeptic forum then you are more than entitled to post in that manner. And in fact, I would be wrong to defend it or myself.

However, how do you ever expect to gain any knowledge if you go straight in attacking things? There is a difference between skeptic and cynic.


As I said, I'm not looking for a row, so I am now out of this conversation. Which is a pity as the OP was making pretty decent points.

MysticalSoul

I have recently undertaken Reiki 2. The first time I went for a reiki session, which I did tell the practitioner I went to at the time, I was sceptical, but yet, I was open to it. It was life changing for me, but as Helena has said herself not earth shattering. I think it is paramount that if you ever do decided to go for a reiki session, that you go in with an open mind. If nothing else, it will have you feeling relaxed. I believe in the benefits that reiki has brought me completely, and I would say, that unless you have tried something yourself, don't knock it until you have at least given it a go.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well seeing as how this thread is in the skeptic forum then you are more than entitled to post in that manner. And in fact, I would be wrong to defend it or myself.

However, how do you ever expect to gain any knowledge if you go straight in attacking things? There is a difference between skeptic and cynic.


As I said, I'm not looking for a row, so I am now out of this conversation. Which is a pity as the OP was making pretty decent points.

So how is bringing up a valid point cynical, I tend to get accused of that alot.

Attacking ideas (or using critical thinking as we like to call it) is in fact a corner stone of modern science, so I expect to gain quite a lot of knowledge.

Skeptic_Desu

irishamethyst wrote: »

I have recently undertaken Reiki 2. The first time I went for a reiki session, which I did tell the practitioner I went to at the time, I was sceptical, but yet, I was open to it. It was life changing for me, but as Helena has said herself not earth shattering. I think it is paramount that if you ever do decided to go for a reiki session, that you go in with an open mind. If nothing else, it will have you feeling relaxed. I believe in the benefits that reiki has brought me completely, and I would say, that unless you have tried something yourself, don't knock it until you have at least given it a go.

I have given it a go and with a very open mind. And as I have said i felt nothing that can't be explained by the placebo effect.

littlebug

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

I have given it a go and with a very open mind. And as I have said i felt nothing that can't be explained by the placebo effect.

or by the very fact that you got to lie down for an hour with nice music and nice smells and maybe relaxed a bit. I believe that this in itself has a healing effect. If reiki is instrumental in facilitating that (at the very least) then where's the harm?

Skeptic_Desu

littlebug wrote: »

or by the very fact that you got to lie down for an hour with nice music and nice smells and maybe relaxed a bit. I believe that this in itself has a healing effect. If reiki is instrumental in facilitating that (at the very least) then where's the harm?

The harm is when people believe it can do more than relax you.
http://www.thehealingpages.com/CaseH...aseHxList.html

http://www.reiki-ireland.com/reiki-energy.htm

http://www.reikifederationireland.co...Hospitals.html

For a small example.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

Oh I see, well the person would be aware of someone in the room as you tend to move around a bit to get to different parts of the body. Do you mean a few different people, a few mins each moving around the body, one of them a practitioner. Person on the bed to say which one it was. Repeated a few times on different people to rule out a lucky guess?

It depends on how the test is conducted but I would expect the person to know that there's other people in the room but not know if there's someone in close proximity performing the reiki or whether that person is a reiki master or just a normal person.

Just on another point, the idea here is not to test reiki in general, just the claim that it is possible to feel the ki energy itself as it flows from the practitioner to the recipient.

Sunn

you're not been sceptical enough in this thread.

Whispered

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

So how is bringing up a valid point cynical

You didn't bring up any point? You linked to a few websites but did not actually make a point, except for a sarcastic comment, which does nothing except close the lines of communication.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

I tend to get accused of that alot.

.

Ah, so you claim not to be a cynic, anyone who says you are must be wrong. Despite what others say you insist you are right even though all other evidence points to you being wrong? If someone did that in a spiritual/religious etc type of way, you'd be picking that apart wouldn't you.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Attacking ideas (or using critical thinking as we like to call it) is in fact a corner stone of modern science, so I expect to gain quite a lot of knowledge.

By we are you talking for all cynics or all skeptics because there is a big difference. The cornerstone for modern science is most certainly not saying "I don't believe in this, so it's wrong, I'm not going to listen to somebody who has studied it for ages because I have decided it's wrong. I'm going to point to studies which will prove MY point and ignore everything else"
If science was like that we'd still be living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around us. You don't gain knowledge by blocking knowledge and closing up to communication which is what you do by being cynical. Skeptics use critical thinking. Cynics just try to be the loudest left shouting in a row. Which would you consider yourself?

(Why oh why do I let myself get dragged into these conversations? I just can't help myself)

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

Just on another point, the idea here is not to test reiki in general, just the claim that it is possible to feel the ki energy itself as it flows from the practitioner to the recipient.

This would be very interesting, do you have someone in mind to be the guinea pig?

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

You didn't bring up any point? You linked to a few websites but did not actually make a point, except for a sarcastic comment, which does nothing except close the lines of communication.

Looking back I wasn't the clearest there. The point I was making was that there were reiki practioners that make rather big medical claims that aren't backed up by any evidence.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Ah, so you claim not to be a cynic, anyone who says you are must be wrong. Despite what others say you insist you are right even though all other evidence points to you being wrong? If someone did that in a spiritual/religious etc type of way, you'd be picking that apart wouldn't you.

I never denied I was a cynic, I asked why does bringing up a relevant point make me cynical?

helena.ryan wrote: »

By we are you talking for all cynics or all skeptics because there is a big difference. The cornerstone for modern science is most certainly not saying "I don't believe in this, so it's wrong, I'm not going to listen to somebody who has studied it for ages because I have decided it's wrong. I'm going to point to studies which will prove MY point and ignore everything else"

I never said I wasn't going to listen, I said that there was no well controlled scientific studies to showed reiki to be an effective treatment.

helena.ryan wrote: »

If science was like that we'd still be living on a flat earth with the sun revolving around us. You don't gain knowledge by blocking knowledge and closing up to communication which is what you do by being cynical. Skeptics use critical thinking. Cynics just try to be the loudest left shouting in a row. Which would you consider yourself?

How exactly was I blocking knowledge?

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

This would be very interesting, do you have someone in mind to be the guinea pig?

I have no one in mind. I need two volunteers. One, a reiki practitioner, the other someone who claims to be able to detect ki energy with a reasonable degree of reliability (need not be 100%). This other person could also be a practitioner but the role would be to detect ki energy.

There would be a need for a third person to act as a control but this can be anyone. The detector would need to tell the difference between the practitioner and the control with a reliability significantly better than chance.

Whispered

Bringing up a valid point is fair enough - saying, I don't think this works because x,y,z is a valid point. Using sarcasm does nothing but lower the tone of a conversation and turn it into a tit for tat.

Reiki is complementary. It should not be used instead of meds. It has however cured someone very close to me of chronic migrane which she has been on tablets for, and has had for at least 15 years. Another person I know has stopped taking tablets for depression since starting reiki.

I would never say reiki should be used to heal everything, but in my opinion, it can put you in the right frame of mind to cope with treatment and facilitate the healing process a body has to go through. If you are going to assume that I automatically agree with every reiki quote you can find on the internet, and throw links at me (which TBH I didn't read) then you are not going to get into a conversation with me, as it will just annoy me and I will get frustrated and switch off.

If you base everything in life on assumptions then you will be blocking new knowledge.

If you are actually interested I am more than happy to answer any question I can, cynical or otherwise. If I don't know I will tell you. If you are just looking to get one up on me then I am not interested in the conversation as I really don't feel the need to prove myself to you. (I don't mean that in a bitchy way or anything).

Skeptic One, two reiki parctitioners and a non practitioner would prob work well. They would have to be strangers though to rule out anything. I think you would be suprised. I would also say you should consider visiting a practitioner for a few sessions and report back.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

Skeptic One, two reiki parctitioners and a non practitioner would prob work well. They would have to be strangers though to rule out anything. I think you would be suprised. I would also say you should consider visiting a practitioner for a few sessions and report back.

Yes, the important thing is that one of the subjects claims to be able to detect ki energy transmitted by the other. I don't think it would be a problem if they knew each other as communication during the experiment other than through ki would be rendered difficult. Strangers would be better but not essential.

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

Yes, the important thing is that one of the subjects claims to be able to detect ki energy transmitted by the other. I don't think it would be a problem if they knew each other as communication during the experiment other than through ki would be rendered difficult. Strangers would be better but not essential.

Well I think if they knew each other there would be ways of knowing. Like if you took me and one of the women I did reiki with, I can say with a lot of confidence that we would know each other eyes closed. Not through anything ki related but through perfume/ personal smell. The way we would tend to move to different points, and time spent at differet points etc. I would say having strangers would be very important to ensure nothing like that effecting the outcome.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

Bringing up a valid point is fair enough - saying, I don't think this works because x,y,z is a valid point. Using sarcasm does nothing but lower the tone of a conversation and turn it into a tit for tat.

It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. The "not having to prove anything" crack was. But rather than reprimand me on tone you should focus on the actual point being made.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Reiki is complementary. It should not be used instead of meds. It has however cured someone very close to me of chronic migrane which she has been on tablets for, and has had for at least 15 years. Another person I know has stopped taking tablets for depression since starting reiki.

You do realise that anecdotal evidence is completely useless in evaluating the efficacy of a treatment, right?

helena.ryan wrote: »

I would never say reiki should be used to heal everything, but in my opinion, it can put you in the right frame of mind to cope with treatment and facilitate the healing process a body has to go through. If you are going to assume that I automatically agree with every reiki quote you can find on the internet, and throw links at me (which TBH I didn't read) then you are not going to get into a conversation with me, as it will just annoy me and I will get frustrated and switch off.

If you base everything in life on assumptions then you will be blocking new knowledge.

I never said that I thought that you argeed with the websites I linked. I linked them because you asked if I knew a reiki practioner that gave antibotics or set bones. It was in fact you who was making assumptions.



Some people do make ridiculous claims about the efficacy of reiki and other alternative medicines that aren't backed up by any evidence, all the way up to curing cancer.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

Well I think if they knew each other there would be ways of knowing. Like if you took me and one of the women I did reiki with, I can say with a lot of confidence that we would know each other eyes closed. Not through anything ki related but through perfume/ personal smell. The way we would tend to move to different points, and time spent at differet points etc. I would say having strangers would be very important to ensure nothing like that effecting the outcome.

I can understand that knowing the person works in favour of a "reiki-positive" result. Measures would need to be taken to try and eliminate smell and other factors. I am willing to take on that challenge. The one assumption I'm making is that reiki doesn't use physical touch. Is this correct?

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

The one assumption I'm making is that reiki doesn't use physical touch. Is this correct?

At the beginning there is a physical touch, the client lies with the practitioners hand underneath them to relax their breathing. But I'm sure if it was not a full session this could be done some other way.

Whispered

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. The "not having to prove anything" crack was. But rather than reprimand me on tone you should focus on the actual point being made.

Who's not having to prove anything crack, mine or yours? I wasn't being sarcastic. Did it come across that way?

What is the actual point? I didn't read the links.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

You do realise that anecdotal evidence is completely useless in evaluating the efficacy of a treatment, right?.

I do, I was actually trying to conversate with you in a friendly manner, and tell you about my personal experience, as I said I am not out to prove anything, obviously useless trying to be friendly. :rolleyes:

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

I never said that I thought that you argeed with the websites I linked. I linked them because you asked if I knew a reiki practioner that gave antibotics or set bones. It was in fact you who was making assumptions.
.

I didn't read, could you quote the part where they gave out antibiotics? Or where they set bones?

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Some people do make ridiculous claims about the efficacy of reiki and other alternative medicines that aren't backed up by any evidence, all the way up to curing cancer.

And some people make ridiculous claims about a lot of things. I think reiki can help cancer patients. I don't think it can cure them, but I do think it can facilitate the body through the medication, help with your state of mind etc. No ethical alternative med practitioner should ever say that reiki etc can cure, no more than a doctor would guarantee results.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

At the beginning there is a physical touch, the client lies with the practitioners hand underneath them to relax their breathing. But I'm sure if it was not a full session this could be done some other way.

Fine. I don't think there would be a problem with relaxation techniques early on but for the actual testing phase it must be reiki only. What I'm thinking of is that the subject to be tested would be isolated sensorially from what is going on. The subject would then try to tell whether they are recieving the ki energy but would not know if it was the real practitioner, the 'sham' practitioner acting as a control, or no one. I'm thinking that low level white noise in addition to music (I understnad music is part of the technique) could be played on headphones to the subject to isolate the sense of hearing. A standard blindfold would do for sight. The full protocol would have to be agreed with everone in advance.

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

Fine. I don't think there would be a problem with relaxation techniques early on but for the actual testing phase it must be reiki only. What I'm thinking of is that the subject to be tested would be isolated sensorially from what is going on. The subject would then try to tell whether they are recieving the ki energy but would not know if it was the real practitioner, the 'sham' practitioner acting as a control, or no one. I'm thinking that low level white noise in addition to music (I understnad music is part of the technique) could be played on headphones to the subject to isolate the sense of hearing. A standard blindfold would do for sight. The full protocol would have to be agreed with everone in advance.

I think this could work very well. Let me know how you get on, I would be very interested.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

Who's not having to prove anything crack, mine or yours? I wasn't being sarcastic. Did it come across that way?

Twas my crack.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I do, I was actually trying to conversate with you in a friendly manner, and tell you about my personal experience, as I said I am not out to prove anything, obviously useless trying to be friendly. :rolleyes:

I had a friend do a session of reiki way back when. It felt good but as I said it wasn't anything the placebo effect couldn't explain.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I didn't read, could you quote the part where they gave out antibiotics? Or where they set bones?

Not so much setting bones but claiming to cure things like: asthma and multiple sclerosis

helena.ryan wrote: »

And some people make ridiculous claims about a lot of things. I think reiki can help cancer patients. I don't think it can cure them, but I do think it can facilitate the body through the medication, help with your state of mind etc.

You may well think that, but the evidence shows otherwise.

helena.ryan wrote: »

No ethical alternative med practitioner should ever say that reiki etc can cure, no more than a doctor would guarantee results.

Couldn't agree more.

Whispered

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

I had a friend do a session of reiki way back when. It felt good but as I said it wasn't anything the placebo effect couldn't explain.
.

Felt good though didn't it. You really wont feel anything though if you are determined not to. You will explain everything away.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Not so much setting bones but claiming to cure things like: asthma and multiple sclerosis
.

Yes but I specifically referred to you saying how doctors have to train for years (so do reiki practitioner btw) I said alt med people don't prescribe antibiotics, set bones, give injections, perform surgery (at least they bloody well shouldn't). Which they don't. Modern med is a lot more invasive than reiki and so can go very wrong if the person adminstering does not know what they are doing. If you do reiki wrong, it just wont work as well. However, I do think there should be a governing body, there is a federation, but membership is voluntary. It should be more tightly controlled.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

You may well think that, but the evidence shows otherwise.
.

What counts as anecdotal evidence? For me seeing a friend coming off tabs counts a lot towards my belief in Reiki, to you it means nothing. (which I understand) So how can I ever have a fair conversation with you when my reasons are based on something you can't accept?

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

Thats good, lets kiss and make up. :P

I'm off to bed. Desperately need my beauty sleep.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

Felt good though didn't it. You really wont feel anything though if you are determined not to. You will explain everything away.

And it works the other way as well, if you want to feel it or think you should, you'll feel it. That's how the placebo effect works.
It's not something that is used just to explain away stuff scientists don't like. It's a very well understood phenonemon and is always accounted for and removed in good scientific tests of any medical method.

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes but I specifically referred to you saying how doctors have to train for years (so do reiki practitioner btw) I said alt med people don't prescribe antibiotics, set bones, give injections, perform surgery (at least they bloody well shouldn't). Which they don't. Modern med is a lot more invasive than reiki and so can go very wrong if the person adminstering does not know what they are doing. If you do reiki wrong, it just wont work as well. However, I do think there should be a governing body, there is a federation, but membership is voluntary. It should be more tightly controlled.

But doctors are using methods that actually produce testable and clear results. You can't equate reiki and actual medicine.
Despite this, some (not all) practitioner state otherwise or allow people to believe that reiki is effective at treating conditions.

helena.ryan wrote: »

What counts as anecdotal evidence? For me seeing a friend coming off tabs counts a lot towards my belief in Reiki, to you it means nothing. (which I understand) So how can I ever have a fair conversation with you when my reasons are based on something you can't accept?

This explains what anecdotal evidence is and why it is not accepted very well. http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

But if the only reason you do believe in reiki is anecdotal evidence, and it being as unreliable as it is, isn't it possible that you are just subject to certain psychological effects (that can effect anyone) that create the illusion of reiki actually working.

Whispered

I'm replying then I'm going to bed! I mean it this time.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

And it works the other way as well, if you want to feel it or think you should, you'll feel it. That's how the placebo effect works.
It's not something that is used just to explain away stuff scientists don't like. It's a very well understood phenonemon and is always accounted for and removed in good scientific tests of any medical method..

Yes I understand that it can work either way. So a healthy dose of skepticism is what is needed. But again, skepticism and cyniscism are different. I would never be able to test because I believe and so it would lean towards a positive result. I don't think you would be able as it would lean towards a negative result.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

But doctors are using methods that actually produce testable and clear results. You can't equate reiki and actually medicine.
Despite this, some (not all) practitioner state otherwise or allow people to believe that reiki is effective at treating conditions.

.

You started equating, you mentioned doctors first. I would never equate reiki with modern medicne. I don't think it should be written off though either. I believe it can help with conditions, depending on what caused the condition in the first place, how long you have had the condition etc.

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

This explains what anecdotal evidence is and why it is not accepted very well. http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
.

I understand why it is not accepted on a scientific level. But can you see the frustration people can experience when trying to explain why they believe something?

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

But if the only reason you do believe in reiki is anecdotal evidence, and it being as unreliable as it is, isn't it possible that you are just subject to psychlogical effect that create the illiusion of reiki accutally working.

Entirely possible if it was the only reason. But it'd not the only reason by any means, but one of the bigger reasons I decided to continue learning Reiki. Anything I can say to defend it though is anecdotal so there really is not much point.

Work at 8am, you made me stay up late.

Skeptic_Desu

helena.ryan wrote: »

I'm replying then I'm going to bed! I mean it this time.

Wuss, Science never sleeps:p!!

helena.ryan wrote: »

Yes I understand that it can work either way. So a healthy dose of skepticism is what is needed. But again, skepticism and cyniscism are different. I would never be able to test because I believe and so it would lean towards a positive result. I don't think you would be able as it would lean towards a negative result.

To be honest I'm much more interested in finding out what is true rather than being right, so I think I would be objective if I was conducting the experiment.

helena.ryan wrote: »

You started equating, you mentioned doctors first. I would never equate reiki with modern medicne. I don't think it should be written off though either. I believe it can help with conditions, depending on what caused the condition in the first place, how long you have had the condition etc.

Placebos can be effective in treating certain conditions in certain situations. However there is no reason to tell people it is ki energy flowing through the body when there is on evidence of that.

helena.ryan wrote: »

I understand why it is not accepted on a scientific level. But can you see the frustration people can experience when trying to explain why they believe something?

Entirely possible if it was the only reason. But it'd not the only reason by any means, but one of the bigger reasons I decided to continue learning Reiki. Anything I can say to defend it though is anecdotal so there really is not much point.

Could you elaborate on the other reasons perhaps?

Whispered

But anything I tell you will be a second hand account and so be anecdotal.

As for the ki energy. The reason for telling people this is because, as far as I am concerned (and almost all alt med practitioners) ki does exist. Thats why we tell people. No other reason.

MysticalSoul

Ethically speaking no reiki practitioner can claim that something can "cure" any ailment, at most they can say it may help, but as with anything there are no guarantees. Back at the start when therapy came about, people were skeptic of that too, and now it is something which is wellfounded and accepted.

For me, even prior to undertaking reiki training, I was very sensitive to energy around me, in that I used to absorb other people's energies which I found draining. So if I can absorb energy which felt negative, it is only natural that the opposite is true.

SkepticOne

irishamethyst wrote: »

For me, even prior to undertaking reiki training, I was very sensitive to energy around me, in that I used to absorb other people's energies which I found draining. So if I can absorb energy which felt negative, it is only natural that the opposite is true.

So can you feel the ki energy during a session with a reiki practitioner?

Whispered

SkepticOne wrote: »

So can you feel the ki energy during a session with a reiki practitioner?

A sensitive person will feel it no matter who they are with.

SkepticOne

helena.ryan wrote: »

A sensitive person will feel it no matter who they are with.

I want to know if it is possible to feel (subjectively at least) the ki from a reiki session as opposed to how you would feel walking about. Presumably it would differ in intensity. That is the basis of my question.

Whispered

Oh I see, ok then.

MysticalSoul

Each reiki session will be different, however the last reiki session I attended, which was just 2 weeks before doing my level 2, the energy was amazing, so yes I can tell the difference. I did change who I went to, as even though the other person I went to before was good, I felt it was time for a change. Even when I attend a reiki share that I attend, I can feel the energy that is in that room (the practitioner sends reiki to the room beforehand as far as I know), and even though it has a lower vibration, the reiki energy is still there, or at least I can feel it anyhow. I can't comment on the other attendees experiences. Also when I went to medium once, who is an IET master, rather than reiki, I could feel the energy then too, the difference in how I experienced the energy was that it felt like it was a lower frequency to reiki.

SkepticOne

irishamethyst wrote: »

Each reiki session will be different, however the last reiki session I attended, which was just 2 weeks before doing my level 2, the energy was amazing, so yes I can tell the difference. I did change who I went to, as even though the other person I went to before was good, I felt it was time for a change. Even when I attend a reiki share that I attend, I can feel the energy that is in that room (the practitioner sends reiki to the room beforehand as far as I know), and even though it has a lower vibration, the reiki energy is still there, or at least I can feel it anyhow. I can't comment on the other attendees experiences. Also when I went to medium once, who is an IET master, rather than reiki, I could feel the energy then too, the difference in how I experienced the energy was that it felt like it was a lower frequency to reiki.

Thanks. Would it be correct to say you could tell the difference between an experienced reiki practitioner in a session and an untrained person going through the motions purely by percieving the ki alone? You would not need to see or hear the person or use any sense other than the direct sensing of the ki.

MysticalSoul

Yes, as the vibration is different. It does depend certain matters though, as if, for some reason, I did not feel comfortable with the practitioner, it would be that much harder. For me, I have to feel a level of trust with the practitioner (this is usually instant depending on the vibe I get from the practitioner). If a practitioner allowed her ego to take over, it would lessen the effect IMHO.

SkepticOne

From the sounds of it the ability to detect alleged ki energy transmitted by a reiki practitioner should be fairly easy to test in the experiment outlined above. Just require the volunteers at this stage.

Whispered

Hey, did you ever get anybody to help you?

SkepticOne

No.

autumngirl

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

It wasn't meant to be sarcastic. The "not having to prove anything" crack was. But rather than reprimand me on tone you should focus on the actual point being made.

You do realise that anecdotal evidence is completely useless in evaluating the efficacy of a treatment, right?

I never said that I thought that you argeed with the websites I linked. I linked them because you asked if I knew a reiki practioner that gave antibotics or set bones. It was in fact you who was making assumptions.



Some people do make ridiculous claims about the efficacy of reiki and other alternative medicines that aren't backed up by any evidence, all the way up to curing cancer.

These so called alternative medicines only relieve people of a lot of hard earned money

Whispered

autumngirl wrote: »

These so called alternative medicines only relieve people of a lot of hard earned money

Reiki is complementary, not alternative.

MizzLolly

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

It's funny how reiki practitioners don't have to prove anything but all new actual medical procedures need years of testing and review before they're let any near a person.

LOL!!


I take it he was joking there?!