FACTS, PARADIGMS, AND ANOMALIES IN THE ACCEPTANCE OF ENERGY PSYCHOLOGY: A REJOINDER TOMcCASLIN'S (2009)ANDPIGNOTTI AND THYER'S (2009)COMMENTS ONFEINSTEIN (2008A)

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Allegations of selection bias and other departures from critical thinking inFeinstein (2008a), found in the Pignotti and Thyer, and the McCaslin commentaries (2009, this issue), 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.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles