LETTERS to the EDITOR a Critical Analysis Of

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR test of my claims. All that is needed is to fol- must be toxic, and suggested that she would low the simple step-by-step directions I pro- need to remove her clothing for tapping to be vide. It only takes a matter of minutes to do effective. There is currently no solid evidence to and the therapy results are usually immediate. view such concepts as anything more than post My algorithms arc quite simple. Using hoc attempts to explain away null effects. my algorithms, grandmothers cure young Callahan states that he has been developing grandchildren, children cure other children, this therapy for over twenty years now, but has lay people are curing themselves, their rela- only in the past few years stopped using affir- tives, and friends. Some psychologists, how- mations in his therapy. However, many TFT¬ ever, are curiously reluctant to try my easy trained therapists, as well as other "energy" step-by-step procedures. therapists, continue to use the affirmations I was recently invited to discuss my work with tapping. For example, we recently with an e-mail list called "Scientific Clinical reviewed a training video from a CT-TFT Psychologists." Surprisingly, not one scientist trained therapist who used affirmations in a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. on the list was willing to test my easily "Energy" therapists frequently combine TFT testable therapy. Professor Herbert indicated with techniques borrowed from established on the list that his only interest in trying it therapies. This highlights the importance of would be to "disprove" my claims, but nev- testing a TFT protocol in controlled conditions ertheless, he was opposed to anyone even in order to determine what, if any, "active trying my procedures. ingredients" the treatment contains. In Professor Bunge's article "Absolute- A Critical Analysis of Skepticism Equals Dogmatism," Bunge Callahan's characterization of the second Thought Field Therapy observes "Once a fact has been reported, authors comments in an academic Internet dis- someone must examine it critically and cussion group is simply inaccurate: we will be My therapy. TFT, has been previously criti- attempt to replicate it independently." happy to forward a copy of Herberts comments cized in the Skeptic. I have responded to that Although this has been done many thou- to any interested reader upon request. In these critique and it will be seen that some of the sands of times throughout the world, the discussions, Callahan was repeatedly asked to mistakes of Herbert and Gaudiano (SI, psychology establishment appears curi- provide controlled data to support his bold July/August 2000) are covered in my ously reluctant. assertions regarding the extraordinary effects of response to that earlier article. Please see I have provided the means for true scien- TFT, which he failed to produce. He seemed puzzled as to why these scientifically minded especially, e.g., the gross error of interpreta- tists to independently replicate my facts. tion of all three critics (writing in Skeptic and psychologists were not impressed solely by anec- Many highly select psychologists choose not SKEPTICAL INQUIRER) of my concept of psy- dotes. to do my very simple experiments. Docs this chological reversal (PR) who wrongly believe sound somewhat like the scientists of We agree totally with Bunge's position that PR is an excuse for failure. Briefly, PR is not Galileo's day who reportedly refused to look skepticism is appropriate when claims are not an excuse for failure but rather a very power- supported by empirical evidence or are incom- ful means to significantly increase success through his scope? patible with known theory TFT clearly meets rate. This simple and crucial fact can easily Roger J. Callahan, Ph.D. both of these conditions because it lacks support be replicated by anyone. Founder, Thought Field from controlled research, and the proposed the- Therapists who follow my procedures Therapy ory including concepts such as "thought fields" (Callahan Techniques®) arc aware that we [email protected] and "perturbations," is at odds with our scien- have not used affirmations (referred to as tific understanding of the human body Brandon Gaudiano and James Herbert cognitive) for a number of years. I have TFT cannot hedge the usual methods of respond: found such cognitive devices to be com- clinical science, and until it is tested under con- pletely unnecessary and misleading; they trolled conditions, no amount of testimonials were an unfortunate hangover from my for- We stand by our assertion that such TFT con- will suffice as evidence of the treatment's effi- mer cognitive therapy days. cepts as "psychological reversal" (PR) and cacy Callahan has not produced a single con- I would recommend that Professor "energy toxins" are convenient attempts to trolled study to support his claims, and it is no Herbert and his student Brandon A. explain away treatment failures. We believe wonder that independent researchers have been Gaudiano carefully read the SI article that that these concepts are used in an effort to reluctant to spend time and resources investi- follows theirs by Professor Mario Bunge, reduce self-reported distress ratings by providing gating these claims. A treatment that is so vastly "Absolute Skepticism Equals Dogmatism." 1 opportunities to retry tapping procedures, superior to any other existing method should be quite easy to verify. In the end, Galileo con- will explain why. thereby increasing the demand characteristics vinced the "skeptics" by providing scientific An unusual feature of my psychotherapy of the therapy. For example, in a recent televi- proof of his assertions, not simply his testimony that is unprecedented is that an honest skep- sion appearance on a BBOTLC show entitled tic can easily replicate my experiments (ther- "Phobias: Prisoners of Panic" (aired August I, apy) by following a few simple directions 2000), Callahan used a PR tapping treatment which describe my therapy algorithms or after the initial phobia "algorithm" was inef- I just read the article "Can We Really Tap "recipes." It is correct uSat training in my pro- fective. When that too failed to resolve the Our Problems Away?" and thought I'd cedures will increase success rate, but it is not woman's phobia and she discontinued the share my personal experience with this necessary to take my training to give a general treatment, Callahan proposed that her T-shirt form of therapy. 6 2 November/December 2000 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 1 was seeing a therapist for a period dur- such topics, but, I will confess, I'm looking As a nonacademic I found the article ing and following a fairly painful divorce. for faults while I'm studying it. "Absolute Skepticism Equals Dogmatism" At one point during my treatment, my Is i( right that I should decide at the out- puzzling and mildly annoying. Professor therapist engaged in Thought Field set that a story is false? I believe when you Bunge rails against what he calls "radical Therapy, although she never mentioned it deal with such extreme beliefs it is just. How skepticism" without ever telling us who by name, nor did she explain anything many times must, say, astrology be proven these radical skeptics are, or even giving us a about what lay behind the exercises she had wrong before one gets sick of explaining single concrete example of their radically me do. She simply asked me to tap my away the whole subject? It's hard to be objec- skeptical assertions. The reader could, in forehead, arms, and chest, roll my eyes and tive when the people you are talking to will fact, be excused for doubting whether radi- hum, in a specific sequence. not listen to reason. cal skepticism exists other than as a con- The exercises failed to have any effect on Truthfully I don't believe many people struct in the mind of Bunge. He docs men- me, so I repeated them several times, with no are complete skeptics in that they disbelieve tion "Thomas S. Kuhn, Paul K. Feyerabend, success. After my session I tried it on my everything. I think most are like me, who, and their followers" as having logically own, thinking maybe the tapping helped to for various reasons, decide that a topic has invalid and historically false notions, but ease muscle tension. I also surmised that the been studied and proven false long enough seems to assume the reader's familiarity with eye-rolling exercise and the humming had that it just isn't worth the time anymore to those notions, to the degree thai no further something to do with interrupting my men- study it further. It's a shame that people exposition of them seems to be required. Are tal focus—by doing something innocuous don't demand more evidence for wild claims. they radical skeptics? and unusual, I was momentarily forced to It's even more of a shame when people place Nor does he justify the use of the terms stop thinking about more serious, anxiety- the burden of proving something false on the "moderate" and "radical" as applied to skep- filled elements in my life. skeptics. And when such studies are under- ticism. This terminology suggests that there While the therapy never had a profound taken and come up negative, is anyone is somehow a spectrum or continuum of effect on me, I assumed il was at least tied to beyond the skeptic community listening? skepticism linking the two philosophical some reasonable theory. I was thus dismayed h is in this light that I can sympathize positions, that they are somehow two differ- to see in your article that it is tied to the with people who have decided that, after ent branches of the same philosophy, with primitive "energy field" myth.

Load more