Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2009 Jun;46(2):262-9. doi: 10.1037/a0016086.

Facts, paradigms, and anomalies in the acceptance of energy psychology: A rejoinder to McCaslin's (2009) and Pignotti and Thyer's (2009) comments on Feinstein (2008a).

Abstract

Allegations of selection bias and other departures from critical thinking in Feinstein (see record 2008-07317-008) found in the Pignotti and Thyer (see record 2009-08897-011), and the McCaslin (see record 2009-08897-010) commentaries, are addressed. Inaccuracies and bias in the reviewers' comments are also examined. The exchange is shown to reflect a paradigmatic clash within the professional community, with energy psychology having become a lightning rod for this controversy. While postulated "subtle energies" and "energy fields" are entangled in this debate, the most salient paradigm problem for energy psychology may simply be that accumulating reports of its speed and power have not been explained using established clinical models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).

PMID:
22122624
DOI:
10.1037/a0016086

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for American Psychological Association
Loading ...
Support Center