The story of healing – from Mesmer to the Present
In 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 Present
Mesmer 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.
