Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/1256819
through overspecialization that can all too frequently result in dogmatic thinking. Overspecialization is an occupational hazard in nearly all fields of modern scientific and medical education. It affects everyone who has been through a standard modern education (perhaps with the exception of the liberal arts). The focus on specialization in education is largely a result of managerial decisions within educational institutions and attempts to balance curricula and staff within a tight academic framework. The modern educational system grooms us for this from an early age, so as we delve deeper into our area of study and practice, we can easily become locked into that world and forget that there are other ways of thinking and seeing. Holistic practitioners are not immune to this, for despite their holistic outlook, not all have the skills training and knowledge base to appraise "hard science." This carries the same risk of ideological bias as does conventional scientific training. Awareness of the Dunning-Kruger effect (whereby we become aware of the limits of our understanding) is a significant tool to avoid blind spots in either direction. The compartmentalization of knowledge serves practical purposes in the modern world but is also a liability because it gives us isolated tools with which to deal with life. If all our training and experience has taught us to use only hammers, then everything looks like a nail. If somewhere along the way, we learn to use a screwdriver, then we see both screws and nails, and we may think the person holding the wrench is a fool. If shown a full toolbox, we may turn away in disgust, thinking that someone is out to trick us. It is only when we consciously realize that our expertise with the hammer has an equal value to someone holding the wrench, and understand the limitations of our own tools, that we might perceive the value of the toolbox. This understanding is the beginning of humility and the first step toward learning, and only then can we break out of the narrow view formed by our education or experiences. It may be difficult to perceive or admit that our view has become narrowed through these formative experiences, especially for people who have pursued a variety of career changes, who eagerly seek out learning opportunities, and whose identity is defined by their profession. In view of the debate underway regarding science and pseudoscience, it has never been more crucial that we reexamine those limitations and reconsider the value of the tools we do not yet understand. In this analogy, the hammer is the given set of skills and professional approaches we have learned to work with, through effort, sweat, and, no doubt, pride. However, this does not mean that wrenches, screwdrivers, and other tools are useless, nor that we know how to use them without being taught. And a structure cannot be built without the whole toolbox working in harmony. A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY It might be easy to think that I am taking the position of a science apologist with this line of thought. Even if I were, that would still be a red herring; whatever my convictions, it is the quality of an argument, not someone's world view, that makes or breaks it. In fact, I see my role as that of translator—someone who speaks two languages (as I do in real life) and who is uniquely placed to see both sides of an issue and translate between them. When we have treatments and modalities that are effective and safe, and that clinical experience—or indeed tradition—has shown to be worthwhile but crucially lack sufficient evidence (or evidence of high enough quality for the reasons explained earlier), then unfortunately (if we do not take great care to use the right language and to stay away from "flaky" claims) we will end up having some aspects unfairly labeled as 48 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 As I wrote this piece, I stumbled across the work of a respected colleague who used a scientized—but not scientific— interpretation of the COVID-19 case and death rates to conclude that one of the wilder conspiracy theories currently spreading on the blogosphere must be true. I am certain that this line of argumentation— into which this person had obviously put a lot of work—was made in good faith and in the name of critical, free thinking. Nevertheless, their argument and supposed "evidence" was littered with logical fallacies, the most obvious of which was the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: cherry-picking information to suit an argument and finding a pattern in it to confirm one's assumption. The name of this fallacy is based on the idea of a marksman shooting at a barn, and then painting a target around the place where most of the bullet holes appeared. This analysis began with a lack of understanding of how epidemiological data is calculated and interpreted, much like the discredited "Bakersfield doctors" viral interview. 14 This is something taught in advanced public health and epidemiology courses, which this particular individual has not studied. However, their good track record as an author and practitioner has won over their unquestioning audience, who in turn see themselves as "free thinkers." Nevertheless, a couple of hours of basic epidemiology methods training, along with some basic sociological observations, would dissolve the arguments made— and the conspiracy theory along with them. Such training is freely available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website (with continuing education credits attached.) 15 WHY BELIEF TRUMPS FACTS Audience bias can take the form of belief based on anecdotal experience or that of strong disciplinary boundaries built