In any field, clear and logical conceptualizations are the basis of accurate models correct research design correct results correct conclusions advancement in the field. Faulty conceptualizations faulty models faulty research design faulty results faulty conclusions confusion. In analyzing the conceptualizations of biofeedback as expressed by John Furedy (1987) in, Specific versus Placebo Effects in Biofeedback Training: A Critical Lay Perspective, we focus on two issues: Does biofeedback have a treatment effect? Is biofeedback necessary for the training effect? In discussing issue (1) we describe the multiple meanings of biofeedback and raise the fundamental question: Is biofeedback a treatment? We argue that faulty conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) assume that the treatment in clinical biofeedback is biofeedback with specific effects, (2) assume that the scientific basis of biofeedback is dependent upon demonstrations of these specific effects through double-blind designs that distinguish specific from placebo effects, and (3) trivialize clinical research by attempting to determine the usefulness of biofeedback information — usefulness that is already understood logically by professionals and consumers and demonstrated by clinical studies in the laboratory and in the clinic. We further argue that accurate conceptualizations of clinical biofeedback (1) identify self-regulation skills as the treatment with specific effects of physiological change and symptom reduction, and (2) describe the use of information from biofeedback instruments as scientific verification of self-regulation skills. Finally, the scientific basis of clinical biofeedback is based on (1) evidence from experimental and clinical control studies that have demonstrated the effectiveness of self-regulation skills for symptom alleviation, and (2) the use of biofeedback instruments to verify the acquisition of self-regulatory skills, thus fulfilling the scientific dictum of verifiability.