Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/1256819
44 m a s s a g e & b o d y w o r k j u l y / a u g u s t 2 0 2 0 some cobwebs; isolate and detach from unscientific language and practices; build a healthy ecosystem of fruitful, constructive dialogue; and encourage higher quality research and research literacy where it is desperately needed. Whichever outcome—or combination of outcomes—prevails, if the scientific community responds to Caulfield's appeal (echoed by many), there is a clear and present danger that well-established therapies and modalities whose research base is young but not pseudoscientific will be tarred with the same brush as true pseudoscience. It has never been more crucial to demonstrate the difference and to find constructive ways to ensure that young fields are ring-fenced from flaky antiscientific claims that can only do them damage. The onus of proof weighs on those within the field, and to produce that proof, the scientific method needs to be understood and respected. This cannot be done through bickering on social media, through personal attacks on people who may be well-meaning but ignorant, or by insisting on the truth of something based solely on anecdotes or shoddy research. CRITICAL THINKING Integral to this discussion is the establishment of what the terms critical thinking and rational reasoning do and do not mean. Critical thinking is not the same as reactive skepticism that automatically approaches a scientific claim with suspicion, because critical thinking does not incorporate emotion. Critical thinking is cool, logical, and, above all, objective. The first step toward developing that logic is to recognize, separate, and compartmentalize our own cognitive bias (shortcuts in thinking that we develop through experiences that make us lose objectivity) and emotional reactions, which often occur because we feel our world view is threatened. The second step is to admit when something is outside our area of expertise and acknowledge what we do not know. Alongside this, understanding and avoiding the host of logical fallacies that are destructive to true critical thinking is vital. 6 This is not to say that the scientific method is perfect. It is far from it, as I will explore in my next column focusing on another current debate regarding the flaws in the current form of scientific research. It is also important to acknowledge that the same points on critical thinking and cognitive bias apply to those on both sides of the debate: scientism (an excessive, often dogmatic belief in the superiority of science) is every bit as misguided as pseudoscience. Nevertheless, scientific reasoning is the predominant way of understanding and discussing the science of health and healing, and its authority comes from 300 years of development based on the principles of impartiality, objectivity, and rationalism (basing opinions on logic and knowledge as opposed to subjective experience). If we do not like the way a system works, then we need to bring viable, logical, and applicable solutions to the table. If we do not like rationalism, then we can join the long-standing philosophical debate on the theory of knowledge, also known as the rationalism versus empiricism debate. That does, however, require advanced training in the history of philosophy and epistemology (the science of thinking about knowledge and the difference between justified belief and opinion). Key to that training is the use of logic. The essence is that we cannot join the discussion and hope to be heard by shrieking on social media, burying one's head in the sand, attacking individuals instead of using reasoned debate to dismantle their ideas. Using catchphrases and arguments like "It's funded by big pharma, so it's corrupt" is a logical fallacy near future. This applies especially to many aspects of the bodywork professions and most of the integrative health professions. Calls such as this are increasing rapidly in the current climate, and may have one of three outcomes. First, they may herald a new wave of scientific rigor and outreach, which may indeed improve scientific literacy in the public sphere, but may also increase intolerance and unjustified demonization of practices with a weak evidence base—a point I will elaborate on later. Caulfield's byline makes his intentions clear: "The scientific community must take up cudgels in the battle against bunk." Cudgels are blunt instruments, and in this scenario, the baby is likely to be thrown out with the bathwater. Second, if scientists follow such calls to take to the airwaves in droves, with charismatic bright-eyed graduates trained in communication methodology and public speaking skills, more confusion—or indeed a pushback—may occur, leading to further divisions and confusion. "Science apologists" and "shills" are labels often applied by those suspicious of such initiatives, and those who advocate for this point of view may be just as persuasive and influential among the unaware. The distinct communication problems identified by those calling for reforms in science training to improve public outreach will take some years to remedy. Lastly, it is possible that scientific outreach may in fact slow and die out as the pandemic is brought under control. The insightful educators across the spectrum of the sciences, but especially within the health-care professions, who do decide to incorporate such approaches into their training may be few and far between. Yet, rather than being a positive result, this would also represent the loss of an immense opportunity for professions who are misunderstood by the scientific establishment to clear out