Energy Healing (facepalm)

[Azathoth]

"How does that work then?" followed by "How do you know that?" My favourite questions.

Asking how it works is a bad idea unless you want to listen to a protracted bout of nonsense. Just ask for evidence.

[mistermack]

"How does that work then?" followed by "How do you know that?" My favourite questions.

Asking how it works is a bad idea unless you want to listen to a protracted bout of nonsense. Just ask for evidence.

Yeh, quite right.
If someone is making an extraordinary claim, it's up to them to provide the extraordinary evidence.
Not for anyone else to dispute it.
My argument generally is that "you're just another crank, unless you can prove otherwise".
And just quoting your own stories isn't any kind of evidence. That's what the cranks do.

[Thinking Aloud]

"How does that work then?" followed by "How do you know that?" My favourite questions.

Asking how it works is a bad idea unless you want to listen to a protracted bout of nonsense. Just ask for evidence.

I'm sure you're right about the nonsense, but it's one way to get them to try to justify what they're saying. Eat bit of nonsense presented can have the same question asked of it. People close up if you ask for evidence right at the start - you're testing their faith in whatever it is - asking them how it works means they have to either invent more layers, or dig deeper into the woo they've uncritically accepted, which only invites further questions. You never know, they might just have to think for a moment.

[apophenia]

It's generally a bad idea to allow someone to shift the burden of proof, or volunteer to do so for them. Moreover, it passes over an opportunity to demonstrate what good thinking consists of, and why; if you never even get to claims about energy healing, helping this person to see better ways of thinking and the justifications for them is a good step. (Though one which I suspect many self-professed skeptics themselves aren't prepared to do, as few go back to first principles to prove for themselves the skeptical dogmas. You may want to brush up on fundamentals before attempting to clean someone else's clock.)

However, if you want, an excellent counterpoint would be to introduce her to nine year old Emily Rosa's landmark study in which she debunked Therapeutic Touch. Not only is it an excellent come uppance to a form of energy healing, being dealt the dirt by a nine year old has got to be somewhat humbling. Though I'm sure the typical woo addict will rationalize it away without missing a beat. (Access to the original article is here. I suggest a less formal presentation.)

In general, I'd suggest that if you can't quote the literature off the top of your head, your energies might be better placed in studying the skeptical approaches to these questions instead of simply searching about for some pre-digested skepticism to deal with a specific claim. As Feynman said, you are the easiest person to fool. Heal thyself first, then worry about others. Just my two cents. YMMV.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ask them how many joules are involved, and watch the face for that "what the fuck is a joule" expression...

Actually, that is very easy to calculate. All you need to know is the mass of his chi and how fast it is travelling - its kinetic energy is then given by 1/2mv2 - obviously, if his chi is warmer than the surrounding area, you will need to factor in its thermal energy and, if the pile of bullshit it is perched on is high enough, potential energy needs to be added as well - using U = mgh.

[klr]

Ask for the peer-reviewed studies with double-blind controls.

[Clinton Huxley]

You could have a look at some of the Quackcast podcasts. They've covered most woo therapies.

[fretmeister]

Ask for the peer-reviewed studies with double-blind controls.

I did!

Apparently journals that print such things are purposely keeping out honest research...

Clint - thank you. Wasnt aware of them.