Dr Mel Siff Blog

The topic of Science and Alternative Therapies is addressed in depth in the
book “Voodoo Science” by physicist Robert Park. His definitions of four
aspects of voodoo science are relevant to our current discussions in this
regard:

VOODOO SCIENCE

1. Pathological science – in which scientists deceive themselves with their
experiments and theories

2. Junk science – in which people try to confuse us with convoluted theories
of what could be so, rather than what is so

3. Pseudoscience – in which there is no scientific evidence, but the jargon
and symbols of science are used

4. Fraudulent science – in which genuine error has resulted from
self-delusion to fraud

Notice that these types of voodoo science do not simply apply to alternative
types, self-appointed fitness gurus and guides, and real charlatans, but also
to professional scientists.

Since we have concentrated much attention on the often exaggerated claims and
beliefs of alternative practitioners, let us now focus for a moment on
scientists, firstly by examining the experimental process. Many scientists
set up experiments with the specific intention of proving or disproving a
theory, in other words, they intentionally limit their search to what they
believe is true or what they believe cannot be true, which in many ways is a
perfectly acceptable definition of bias or prejudice (‘pre-judgement’).

‘MYSTICISM’ IN SCIENCE

It seems to be rare that scientists allow their experiments to drift off into
uncharted or vague waters on missions of discovery in the hope that
something will emerge from such ‘chaotic’ or unpredetermined expeditions. It
is not that carefully planned experiments are unscientific or unfairly
biased, for many of the greatest discoveries have been made in this
methodical, detective-like fashion. It is just that this approach often
causes us to lose sight of the fact that many other great discoveries have
emerged from the more coincidental, unplanned flights of fancy and research
(Jungian “synchronicity” or “meaningful coincidence” ?).

Many scientists have described insights or discoveries that have emerged from
reverie, day dreaming, drifting and floating off on vague speculative or
vacuous forays into the unknown. Apparently some of Einstein’s advances in
relativity theory, Kekule’s discovery of the benzene ring in chemistry and
Mendeleev’s formulation of the Periodic Table of Elements all emerged from
altered states of consciousness like this or from unplanned voyages into the
realm of thought. These and many other creations in science, art, music and
other aspects of life are covered by Arthur Koestler in his book “Act of
Creation” and maybe it is time to remind scientists that the scope of
discovery is far wider than what is classically taught in universities.

As a scientist who underwent formal training in physics, applied mathematics,
philosophy, psychology, engineering and physiology, I was never taught about
the more ‘mystical’ side of science – that simply emerged from additional
reading of the great thinkers and from personal experience. Are there any
other scientists on this group who actually were taught the possible role of
the more ‘mystical’ side to scientific discovery (and even sports training)?

The following website is devoted to the subject of ‘mystical’ experiences and
learning in science:

http://www.issc-taste.org/index.shtml

VIRTUAL REALITY SCIENCE

Another often forgotten type of scientific experiment, especially in the
world of exercise physiology and sports science is the gedanken experiment
(“thought experiment”) which has been widely used in physics. The scientist
creates virtual realities in his mind and thinks them through in many
different ways to test which alternative seems to be most logical or
concordant with the facts. In many ways, we can also use computers to
augment gedanken experiments or to simulate ‘reality’.

However, it must be noted that all types of physical and virtual experiments
ultimately have to be tested against what really happens in ‘real life’ – and
so do all alternative theories and beliefs!

Dr Mel C Siff

<< Okay, I’ve heard this claim many times (stabilisation originates from the
“centre.”. Do you have anything to prove this? From a biomechanical point of
view, all movement and stabilization occurs from the ground up….>>

*** This is a claim that far too many people take for granted. Courses on
“Core Stabilisation” are offered by numerous fitness gurus, physical
therapists and fitness organisations, but few people dare to make heretical
remarks that question the ‘Core is All Important’ philosophy. If one has
back problems, poor technique in sport, lack of flexibility and so on, “blame
it on deficiencies in core stability” is the cry.

An article that I wrote for several other Internet discussion groups is
relevant in this regard.

————————————–

CORE STABILITY?

Mel Siff

Today, in the fitness and therapeutic world, one of the latest buzz terms
is “core stability” and courses are cropping up everywhere to teach this
amazing new discovery in the world of motor control. The implications are
that an athlete or normal human is somehow seriously deficient if core
stability exercises are not being done in some or other discrete, isolated
fashion.

The belief here, of course, is that isolated core stabilising exercises
necessarily improve balance and postural control. They do not, since most
stabilisation and movement in sports where the hands and feet are in
contact with a surface also depends very strongly on PERIPHERAL contact
with the given surface (some exceptions are diving, airborne gymnastic and
skating manoeuvres, and trampolining.) If this contact is inefficient or
unstable, then no amount of core stabilisation is going to overcome any
deficiency in peripheral stability.

Some simple examples – imagine what would happen to a gymnast or trapeze
artist with poor ankle strength and stability or a huge weightlifter with
great core stability but deficiencies in grip or ankle strength and
stability? One could list a thousand similar examples.

This concept of a separate motor quality called “core stability” leads to
the very faulty belief that core stability is more important and more
central to overall stability than peripheral stability. The fact is that
the body is a linked system of many interacting components, and current
“core stabilisation” dogma happens to be yet another example of
isolationist training. To borrow a somewhat cliched term from the
vocabulary of the late South African Prime Minister, General Jan Smuts (who
coined the word “holism”), it would be far better to talk about “holistic”
stability training. An emphasis on “core stability” is a step towards
general instability, unless it is matched by peripheral stabilisation.

Once upon a time we had kinaesthetic or proprioceptive training or even
motor skill training – now we have “core stability” training, which is by
no means an suitable modern substitute for what used to be offered.
Possibly it is time for the whole “core stabilisation” industry needs to
carefully re-examine itself and take a step back to its more solid older
roots. “Core stabilisation” may be a new term, but it offers little or
nothing new to fitness, therapy or sports training that was not covered
perfectly well a long time ago.

———————————-

Dr Mel C Siff