In a previous post, we dived right into high school chemistry and physics, and explored the core, scientific elements that serve the basis of energy healing.
We explored why it is that energy healing can be effective, given what we, what science, knows about energy, molecular structures and the physical properties of matter.
We outlined the theoretical framework, based completely in scientific understanding, as to why moving, transforming and altering energy can result in positive outcomes and states that are in alignment with your ideal self - otherwise known, as healing.
As a recap -
All matter is made of particles that have energy. Energy is a property of matter. Humans are matter and at a core level, are made up of particles that have and can shift energy. Healing energy, is the practice of activity engaging in shifting energetic states to return each person to an ideal state. (See the full article here.)
The properties of matter, energy, for one, are known elements of scientific study, and in fact, these known properties are known as laws within science, and their acceptance is the basis on which all science stands.
Why is it, then, that science as a collective field, has not yet embraced energy healing and those who practice it within the profession?
After all, it can be said that really, energy healers and many kinds of scientists, are doing the exact same thing - moving molecules that have energy to make changes to the environment.
An energy healer, is an energy shifter, transformer and reactor.
And as you know, core scientific fields are based in quantifying and measuring - the changes, movements and impacts of things that have energy.
Is it not then that these two fields, energy healing and science, are really doing the same thing, just in different ways?
Science - moving energy that typically can be seen or measured with instruments.
Energy Healing - moving energy that typically can be felt and noticed, generally unseen and without instrumentation
Is the lack of acceptance of energy healing by science, then, a complete contradiction?
- a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
- a person, thing, or situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
- the statement of a position opposite to one already made.”
Science’s overall lack of acceptance to the field of energy healing is in contradiction with many of the core elements of science.
So, what gives?
Well, for one, not all scientists and fields of study are the same. It is true, that some fields of study and individuals within those fields, such as physics and chemistry, are more open to the ideas that there are things going on that we can’t see, so anything is possible.
In those fields, much of what is being studied cannot be seen or often times, even measured - not even with microscopes, electromagnetic sensing equipment and particle accelerators.
In fact, a lot of what is studied, is done so, in a theoretical, hard to quantify way, which is often why these fields are so difficult for many of us to understand - because there’s nothing to see and there’s nothing to look at with your eyes.
And this needing to see, needing to measure, needing to attach numbers and values to, and needing to identify everything with physical equipment, is ultimately, where the two fields clash and where the contradiction has arisen.
It wasn’t always this way.
If you read earlier scientific works, from before the 20th century, there’s quite a bit more reference all things unseen.
Many, many, early scientists, doctors, and philosophers wrote about and referenced - the impacts of molecules and of energy on our own well-being.
Newton, Aristotle, and Nikola Tesla, have all referenced the importance and the value of the unseen - of the intuitive body, of the spiritual being and our energetic transformations occurring below the surface.
And then, sometime in the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a transition away from this type of scientific observation - the kind that not only speculated on the seen and measurable, but also on the unseen.
What happened around the time this shift occurred?
What would cause an entire collective body of scientific researchers, to shift away from discussing the unseen in their writings?
What could it be….?
In an effort for transparency in scientific experimental reporting and documentation, because there was, unfortunately, a problem with widespread data fabrication - the scientific community came together to develop a system that would require clean note taking, clear presentation of experimental methods, and quantifiable, measurable numerical results that other scientists could look at for themselves to make their own interpretations. All in an effort for collective scientific progress and to advance as a species.
The advent of scientific journals and reporting, inclusive of the peer review system, is what caused this.
Scientists were now required to report their observations, methods, and results in this new, standardized way, which required tangible explanations produced with tangible instruments. If your results now had to be primarily associated with numbers and things that could be quantified, in some way, how then, are you going to report the unseen and the unmeasurable?
You couldn’t anymore.
You can no longer speculate and talk about the impact of the unseen, and the effects on the human body and spirit, at least not in a public forum, because you can’t give it numbers and values.
You, and no other scientist, can give the human experience, justifiably so, a numerical value that can be replicated, if someone needed to check your work.
Because, a single human’s life can’t be replicated!
You already know this, inherently, but you’ve also seen it in scientific reporting.
Have you ever seen a news article of some study making a vague claim, for example, that children who eat peanut butter and jelly 3 times a week fare better, academically, than those who don’t? (Or some other equally as ridiculous claim).
And then you wondered, how can they even study that? There are approximately 1 million differences in the lives of each child - socioeconomic status, parents in the home, parenting style, other dietary choices, siblings, no siblings, breast milk as an infant, vaginal or cesarean birth, premature or late delivery, etc., etc. etc. Of course, statistically, the claim is that these things can be “controlled for,” but the truth is, the impacts of each and every piece of each individual’s experience cannot ever be quantified. It cannot ever be said, that X event always leads to Y result, at least not when you’re talking about an entire human life.
Energy healing fell out of discussion within the scientific community, when the scientific community began requiring quantification of events, and physical evidence that X thing leads, almost always leads (p < .05, anyone?) to the same outcome.
No human life ever leads to the same outcome.
There are no predictable results for the outcome of a human experience.
And energy healing, makes changes in a human’s energetic life - at the level of energetic particles, which are mostly, unseen, unable to be looked at with our eyes, and not at the time of this writing, are they able to really be measured or given a number.
There are, however, changes that can be felt and seen in the life of the individual who has undergone a rapid energetic transformation. But, the person whose life has been energetically transformed, and the healer, the person who is enacting the transformation, are not exactly doing it to achieve measurable data that can be reported later in a journal article.
It’s a personal journey, and the importance is placed on making someone feel better, and not, on obtaining data points for a paper.
This is where energy healing and science diverged. Two different emphases.
Energy healing, on helping individuals through a personal experience, regardless of numerical data, and science, on helping enhance greater understanding of our world, on the basis of measurable data.
Energy healers and scientists are the same.
One looks to help and enact change, outside of the context of data and numbers, and the other, looks to help within the context of data and numbers.
Both are enacting change within the framework of the properties of energy and matter, just with different a different focus.
There’s a contradiction here, in the mutual exclusion between science and energy healing, but there doesn’t need to be.
It’s the same. We’re the same.
Let’s be friends.
LAST UPDATED: November 7, 2014