David J Hufford, Meredith Sprengel, John A Ives, Wayne Jonas
{"title":"生物场疗法进入 \"主流 \"医疗领域的障碍。","authors":"David J Hufford, Meredith Sprengel, John A Ives, Wayne Jonas","doi":"10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this article, we describe barriers to the entry of biofield healing into mainstream contemporary science and clinical practice. We focus on obstacles that arise from the social nature of the scientific enterprise, an aspect of science highlighted by the influential work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), one of the most important- and controversial-philosophers of science in the 20th century. Kuhn analyzed science and its revolutionary changes in terms of the dynamics within scientific communities. Kuhn's approach helps us understand unconventional medical theories and practices such as biofield healing. For many years, these were called \"complementary and alternative medicine\" (CAM). However, because most people use nonmainstream approaches in conjunction with conventional treatments, the National Institutes of Health and many practitioners now prefer \"Complementary and Integrative Medicine\" (CIM) where integrative implies \"bringing conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way.\"(1) Biofield healing fits the integrative model well, provides a novel approach to therapeutic intervention, and is developing in a manner that can integrate with current medical science in simple ways. Yet, it still remains outside the conventional framework because of its conceptual bases, which contrast sharply with conventional assumptions regarding the nature of reality. </p>","PeriodicalId":11675,"journal":{"name":"Ejc Supplements","volume":"8 1","pages":"79-88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers to the Entry of Biofield Healing Into \\\"Mainstream\\\" Healthcare.\",\"authors\":\"David J Hufford, Meredith Sprengel, John A Ives, Wayne Jonas\",\"doi\":\"10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this article, we describe barriers to the entry of biofield healing into mainstream contemporary science and clinical practice. We focus on obstacles that arise from the social nature of the scientific enterprise, an aspect of science highlighted by the influential work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), one of the most important- and controversial-philosophers of science in the 20th century. Kuhn analyzed science and its revolutionary changes in terms of the dynamics within scientific communities. Kuhn's approach helps us understand unconventional medical theories and practices such as biofield healing. For many years, these were called \\\"complementary and alternative medicine\\\" (CAM). However, because most people use nonmainstream approaches in conjunction with conventional treatments, the National Institutes of Health and many practitioners now prefer \\\"Complementary and Integrative Medicine\\\" (CIM) where integrative implies \\\"bringing conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way.\\\"(1) Biofield healing fits the integrative model well, provides a novel approach to therapeutic intervention, and is developing in a manner that can integrate with current medical science in simple ways. Yet, it still remains outside the conventional framework because of its conceptual bases, which contrast sharply with conventional assumptions regarding the nature of reality. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ejc Supplements\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"79-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654786/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ejc Supplements\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ejc Supplements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Barriers to the Entry of Biofield Healing Into "Mainstream" Healthcare.
In this article, we describe barriers to the entry of biofield healing into mainstream contemporary science and clinical practice. We focus on obstacles that arise from the social nature of the scientific enterprise, an aspect of science highlighted by the influential work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), one of the most important- and controversial-philosophers of science in the 20th century. Kuhn analyzed science and its revolutionary changes in terms of the dynamics within scientific communities. Kuhn's approach helps us understand unconventional medical theories and practices such as biofield healing. For many years, these were called "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM). However, because most people use nonmainstream approaches in conjunction with conventional treatments, the National Institutes of Health and many practitioners now prefer "Complementary and Integrative Medicine" (CIM) where integrative implies "bringing conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way."(1) Biofield healing fits the integrative model well, provides a novel approach to therapeutic intervention, and is developing in a manner that can integrate with current medical science in simple ways. Yet, it still remains outside the conventional framework because of its conceptual bases, which contrast sharply with conventional assumptions regarding the nature of reality.
期刊介绍:
EJC Supplements is an open access companion journal to the European Journal of Cancer. As an open access journal, all published articles are subject to an Article Publication Fee. Immediately upon publication, all articles in EJC Supplements are made openly available through the journal''s websites.
EJC Supplements will consider for publication the proceedings of scientific symposia, commissioned thematic issues, and collections of invited articles on preclinical and basic cancer research, translational oncology, clinical oncology and cancer epidemiology and prevention.
Authors considering the publication of a supplement in EJC Supplements are requested to contact the Editorial Office of the EJC to discuss their proposal with the Editor-in-Chief.
EJC Supplements is an official journal of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) and the European Society of Mastology (EUSOMA).