Okay, I'll bite. The problem with "it's real" is that it's unclear WHAT is real. In science, we may start with "does it work", but the aim is to progress to "why it works" and follow the rabbit hole down to underlying principles.
"Reiki works" means what exactly? That people report feeling better? That it reduces measurable symptoms in a disorder? I think there's some evidence to support both of those claims. But now if we dig deeper, does it have anything to do with Reiki or is the underlying principle belief, human contact, or something of this nature?
If the mechanism is belief/social contact/etc the tendency is to just toss it out. But from a therapeutic perspective, we would then look at whether it does anything better or different than therapy, hypnosis, or some other evidence supported treatments, of which there are many.
Honestly "all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit" is not very useful either. "What parts of it are supported and unsupported?" would be more useful and avoid the false dichotomy you've set up here.
"Reiki works" means what exactly? That people report feeling better? That it reduces measurable symptoms in a disorder? I think there's some evidence to support both of those claims. But now if we dig deeper, does it have anything to do with Reiki or is the underlying principle belief, human contact, or something of this nature?
If the mechanism is belief/social contact/etc the tendency is to just toss it out. But from a therapeutic perspective, we would then look at whether it does anything better or different than therapy, hypnosis, or some other evidence supported treatments, of which there are many.
Honestly "all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a crock of shit" is not very useful either. "What parts of it are supported and unsupported?" would be more useful and avoid the false dichotomy you've set up here.