No More Worries!


Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

Paper Formatting

  • Double or single-spaced
  • 1-inch margin
  • 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
  • 300 words per page

No Lateness!

image Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay

AEW Guarantees

image

  • Free Unlimited revisions
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Money Return guarantee
  • Plagiarism Free Writing

The therapists wanted Emily to become famous

CASE 3

“Biofield therapeutics” is known commonly as touch therapy. The practitioner moves his hands over the body of the patient an inch or two away, smoothing and balancing the patient’s “energy field” or aura. Practitioners claim this field extends outward from the body for several inches. A trained touch therapist says he/she can sense by touch your energy field and then fix it if it’s not aligned. The practice was adopted in the U.S. from ancient Chinese practitioners of qi gong by Delores Krieger, a professor of nursing at New York University. No one has been harmed by having his or her aura read and manipulated. But there is no evidence of therapeutic benefit, other than testimonials from satisfied recipients. Emily Rosa was an 11-year-old schoolgirl who decided it would be possible to do a double-blind test of the claim that touch therapists can feel the body’s energy field, described by therapists as tingling, warm, or offering a gentle resistance. She asked 21 local touch therapists in Boulder, Colorado to submit to a beautifully simple double-blind test she invented for her science fair project. She spent $10 on materials. She was seated across a table from each touch therapist. The table was divided by a screen so Emily and therapist could not see each other. The therapist would extend both of his/her hands, palms down, through holes in the screen Emily purchased. Emily would then place one of her hands just below, but not touching, one of the therapist’s hands. She used a coin toss to decide under which of the therapist’s hands she would place her own (left or right). The therapist would then be asked to begin, and he/she was to identify under which hand of his/her own was Emily’s hand, left or right, based on sensing Emily’s hand’s energy field. The entire procedure for all 21 therapists was captured on video tape. In 273 trials (each therapist got to try 13 times), therapists scored a combined total of 44% correct in their identification of Emily’s hand being under their own left or right hand, based on reading of her hand’s “energy field.” Guessing would produce 50% accuracy. (Emily’s experiment was written up and submitted to the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association. Emily became the youngest person ever to have a paper published in a major medical journal.)

Three of the therapists subsequently responded to Emily’s published article, each with one of the following claims:

(a) We wanted Emily to become famous and we don’t believe her scientific report “exposing” us will prevent any of us from continuing our careers as manipulators of energy auras (if for no other reason than that our clients don’t read scientific journals).

(b) We only identified her energy less than half the times we tried, but that is because she doubted our abilities to read auras. She blocked us by doubting us. We can read anyone’s energy so long as they believe in us.

(c) We have learned from this experience that we have to see the patient’s body in order to read and manipulate someone’s energy field. We didn’t realize this before, thinking our hands alone were enough to manipulate the real, colored energy coming off everyone’s bodies. Thank you, Emily. We learned more about our own powers because of you.

PROMPTS: Analyze each of the responses (a), (b), and (c). Prove each excuse is logically unacceptable.

 

 

Sample Answer

 

(a) The response that the therapists wanted Emily to become famous and that her scientific report will not affect their careers as manipulators of energy auras is logically unacceptable. This response fails to address the actual findings of Emily’s experiment, which demonstrated that the therapists were unable to accurately identify the location of her hand based on reading her energy field. The claim that their clients do not read scientific journals is irrelevant to the fact that their abilities were tested and found to be lacking. The logical response to this situation would be for the therapists to acknowledge the results and re-evaluate their beliefs and practices.

(b) The claim that Emily’s doubt affected the therapists’ ability to read her energy field is logically unacceptable. It suggests that the therapists’ abilities are contingent upon the belief of the individual being read, which undermines the supposed objective nature of their practice. If touch therapists truly possess the ability to read energy fields, their accuracy should not be influenced by the doubts or beliefs of others. The fact that they were unable to consistently identify Emily’s hand location indicates a lack of genuine ability rather than being hindered by doubt. This claim serves as a rationalization to explain their failure rather than addressing the actual results of the experiment.

(c) The claim that the therapists have learned from Emily’s experiment that they need to see the patient’s body in order to read and manipulate their energy field is also logically unacceptable. It contradicts their initial claims about being able to sense and manipulate energy fields without physical contact. If their previous assertions were true, they should have been able to accurately identify the location of Emily’s hand without visual confirmation. This response reflects a shift in their original claims and highlights the lack of consistency and reliability in their practice. It suggests that their understanding of their own powers was flawed, indicating a lack of genuine abilities rather than a newfound realization.

In conclusion, each of the responses provided by the touch therapists fails to offer a logically acceptable explanation for their inability to accurately read Emily’s energy field in her experiment. These responses either deflect from the actual findings, place blame on external factors, or reveal inconsistencies in their own claims. The logical response would be for the therapists to critically reassess their beliefs and practices in light of the evidence presented by Emily’s experiment.

 

 

 

 

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
PLACE AN ORDER NOW

Compute Cost of Paper

Subject:
Type:
Pages/Words:
Single spaced
approx 275 words per page
Urgency:
Level:
Currency:
Total Cost:

Our Services

image

  • Research Paper Writing
  • Essay Writing
  • Dissertation Writing
  • Thesis Writing

Why Choose Us

image

  • Money Return guarantee
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • Written by Professionals
  • Paper Written from Scratch
  • Timely Deliveries
  • Free Amendments