|
On Divine Healing with Spinal Straightening:
An Introduction for skeptics, pragmatist, scientists and psudo-scientists.
By Dean Hoshizaki
Alexander Toskar and his wife Carolin provide a unique treatment. To understand the unique nature of their treatments we must first provide a background.
We start with the assumption that “alternative healing” disciplines represent a wide and diverse ecosystem of methodologies. Consummate with this variety, the effectiveness varies widely. So we must be careful not to oversimplify or lumps groups treatments together and address each based on its individual merits. It is usually the case that the more miraculous the claims the more suspect the discipline. To wit, there are several problems with alternative treatments, principle among them are:
1) Verifiability of the cause-effect relationship between the treatment and the benefit
2) Practitioners often cloud any investigation with pseudo-science methods or fallacious arguments
Understanding these limitations will cast Divine healing in enough light that people can make their own judgments to its merits and value.
The first point can be further divided into three parts:
1a) Verifiability of the cause
1b) Verifiability of the benefits
1c) Verifiability that the cause’s linkage to the benefits
Traditional science starts from a long tradition of empirical sciences. Hallmark to these sciences are the apparent ease of verifying causal relationships. Chemistry and physics are two disciplines that provide numerous examples of how we are obliged to accept as facts their bodies of knowledge because, they provide clear causal relationships. However, traditional Science does not end there, by ANY means. Indeed a principle tenant of scientific advancement is to examine phenomenon which the cause and effects are NOT so clear. Furthermore, science attempts to incorporate these phenomena into the existing framework and maintain consistency in the belief system and thereby revise the boundaries of what is consider the collective knowledge of reality.
Further down the ladder of empirical science, we have those garner less clarity in their casual relationships. Examples are biology and sociological disciplines such as cognitive psychology. These disciplines carry, on the surface, the additional burden of causal complexity and the “human element”. Specifically, the complexity of the relationships are “one to many” and difficulty in verifying within the medium of “thoughts and beliefs”.
At the lower rungs of the ladder, are the alternative medical practices. Often they suffer from a complete breakdown of discipline. As if their foundations are so frail as to not being able to even look objectively at the corpus of established scientific knowledge nor at their own assumptions. Ironically, as a result, they languish in a lack of respect from the traditional sciences, for they do not pay due respect to the established disciplines. And in doing so they cast themselves into the realm of Pseudo science.
As a working criterion of science versus pseudo-science, we will refer to the article by Sven Ove Hansson in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The link is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/pseudo-science/
The following is directly quoted:
“(the) seven-itemed characterization of pseudoscience was proposed as representing seven common ways to deviate from a minimal (necessary but not sufficient) criterion of science, namely: Science is a systematic search for knowledge whose validity does not depend on the particular individual but is open for anyone to check or rediscover.
1. Belief in authority: It is contended that some person or persons have a special ability to determine what is true or false. Others have to accept their judgments.
2. Non-repeatable experiments: Reliance is put on experiments that cannot be repeated by others with the same outcome.
3. Handpicked examples: Handpicked examples are used although they are not representative of the general category that the investigation refers to.
4. Unwillingness to test: A theory is not tested although it is possible to test it.
5. Disregard of refuting information: Observations or experiments that conflict with a theory are neglected.
6. Built-in subterfuge: The testing of a theory is so arranged that the theory can only be confirmed, never disconfirmed, by the outcome.
7. Explanations are abandoned without replacement. Tenable explanations are given up without being replaced, so that the new theory leaves much more unexplained than the previous one. (Hansson 1983) ”
So what is Divine healing with Spinal Straightening?
So armed with this background we can take an objective look at these treatments.
According to Alexander Toskar, Divine healing is an energetic state whereby the body becomes as it should. Furthermore, when the body is allowed to energetically flow properly, the spine assumes a default configuration that is optimal for health and neurological-physiological function.
What is unique about DH w SS among the alternative medicine realm are the measurable results. Each patient’s legs become of equal length. Assuming this is the result of the pelvis becoming equalized as a result of the spine returning to its default optimal position. This particular result is not only repeatable by Toskar, but highly consistent.
Where the waters become a bit murkier are in the following areas:
I. What is the cause of this result (effect)?
II. Given the visible, measurable, result, what are the health benefits?
Let’s look at the first point. During the treatment Alexander does not physically come into contact with the person receiving the treatment. Furthermore, the pelvis and leg equalization happens in the time span of 5- 10 seconds while Alexander appears to be “concentrating” over the person receiving the treatment. Observers can actually see the legs at the heel point move into an equalized position.
So clearly we don’t have a traditional explanation. However this is not a point where we can condemn his treatments. Indeed, the history of science is replete with examples of results being observed and the mechanism leading up to the results are not clearly understood until sometime later in history.
For a non binding explanation, Alexander offers a spiritual explanation. See his books or brochure for details. It is non-binding because one is not required to “buy into” the explanation to experience the results.
On the second point, not being of a medical, bio-mechanical, nor physiological discipline, one can offer a couple of launching points for further investigation. However, there are several facts of the matter which should be considered. First the spinal column is in the core of the physical and neurological body. As such, common sense dictates a healthy optimally functional spine (bones and nervous tissue) would help the body performs its proper functions.
Pragmatics:
Because we have painted a reasonably objective picture thus far, we can switch our attention to some practical aspects. First up is the risk versus reward of experiencing a treatment with Alexander Toskar. From this viewpoint, the main risks are a loss of time, some money and perhaps hope if one is disappointed. The rewards could be significant. As compared to alternative treatments such as, chiropractics, surgery, leg-heel lifts, orthotic shoe inserts, structural body work, this single treatment is a bargain. In addition since there is no physical contact required, your body will be no worse for wear than simply arriving at the location and getting on and off a table where you receive the treatment.
Also one should manage their expectations. One should expect the pelvis will be horizontal to the ground (orthogonal to gravity), as represented by legs of equal length. We call this the “Base Result” Furthermore, but less concrete, the spine is energetically straightened such that its default position is optimal. However, this does not mean that one’s bones or muscles will be transformed immediately. Nevertheless, one physiological theory goes if one stands and walks symmetrically, i.e. orthogonally against gravity, over time the musculature and bone structure will organize itself accordingly. The former changes much faster in a matter of months and the latter in over years. Finally, one should note, that in general the bones of the legs are of the same length. However, most often they are not the same length functionally due to neurological-muscular imbalance. The base results correct this imbalance.
The concept of energetically straightening might seems foreign at first. However, we can frame the concept in terms of how we continuously use our bodies. If a person is slouching over, and they “straighten up”, they are using their neurological capability to influence the muscles and the body becomes erect. This is common sense. The intention to stand erect is manifested in the nervous system dictating to the muscles how to configure themselves to “straighten up”. In this context, these treatments create an energetic situation analogous to nervous system dictating the muscles to conform to being properly erect. After all, the body can change positions and shapes at will quickly. A key difference is the default or resting position becomes the optimal position, as if the nervous system and hence the muscles have a “standing order” to be optimally positioned.
Lastly, one will find there is no attempt to indoctrinate persons into a belief system or religious assumptions. One could not even speak the same language as Alexander and have the same basic results.
Common questions and further inquiry:
Is this a mystical experience?
Under the broad definition, cited below, of what qualifies as mysticism, No.
As a launching point for further inquiry, we cite the article by Jerome Gellman and this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/mysticism/
In particular, there is no attempt at hiding or subterfuge by Alexander. Next there is no attempt to bolster the effectiveness of the base results with a requirement to believe his personal ontological beliefs. Finally, the base result is ostensible; i.e. it does not rely upon personal testimony or narratives to verify the results. These three points are hallmarks of “mystic” experiences. Do not confuse his personal explanation, if you find them obtuse or incompatible with your belief system, as an effort to deceive or hide. Frankly, if he has or will have more explanatory currency, he would freely divulge it. In that way the work is more like science in its embracing of openness to scrutiny and to document and verify where possible.
Is this a miracle?
On this point, the jury is probably still out. On one hand, the causal relationship is not understood. On the other hand, the extra-ordinary nature of the treatment, might tip the scales towards “yes”. However, as stated before, because the causal relationship is not known, at this time, we should be cautious not to conduct simple minded thinking and be too quick to embrace an all encompassing explanation. We need to consider and exhaust the obvious explanations first and foremost. Indeed, not only does a “miracle” explanation go against critical thinking as required to stay above the quagmire of pseudo science, it does not serve to further our understanding, in the broadest sense. For an investigative starting point we cite this article by Michael Levine and this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/miracles/
Copyright © 2008 Dean Hoshizaki, Seattle
 Watch the interview with Dean
| 