Woo-Woo Took a Beating in 2009
DharmaTroll
http://www.livescience.com/health/091208-alternative-medicine.html
By Christopher Wanjek,
LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist
If there's a silver lining in the continued popularity of non-
scientific healing techniques, it's the fact that the scientific
community is at long last putting these so-called treatments and
potions through vigorous testing. And one by one they fail to live up
to their purported benefits.
Here are five woo-woo alternative therapies that were debunked or
denounced in 2009.
(1) Reiki
Reiki is a spiritual practice developed in Japan in the early 20th
century that, in the hands of Westerners, has evolved into a new-age
healing practice. Popular in Hawaii and California by the 1970s, reiki
has since become a staple at health spas and in granola-loving cities
across the United States.
Reiki involves a practitioner (that is, someone who has taken a couple
days of training) who places her hands on or just above a patient's
body to transmit healing energy — the "ki" or reiki, better known as
qi in Chinese traditional medicine. Reiki has all the trappings of new-
age healing: restoring balance and instilling life energy through
mysticism and/or vibrational energy. Akin to a hands-off massage,
reiki is said to relieve stress, fatigue and depression and promote
self-healing for just about any disease, including cancer.
The two largest scientific reviews of reiki, published last year in
International Journal of Clinical Practice and in November 2009 in the
Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, reveal that reiki
is not an effective treatment for any condition. Also in 2009, the
U.S. Catholic Church weighed in, stating at a March meeting of bishops
that, "since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian
teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for...
Catholic health care facilities... to provide support for Reiki
therapy."
Reiki is not an outright scam; the practitioners seem to believe in
what they are doing. In the end the soft music and whispery speech of
the practitioners during the reiki sessions merely helps one relax.
(2) Reflexology or zone therapy
What's the connection between the center of the ball of the left foot
and the heart? Apparently nothing, according to systematic reviews of
reflexology, or zone therapy, the practice of massaging the feet and
sometimes hands or ears to cure disease.
Maybe you've seen the charts. The toes are somehow connected to the
head and sinuses. There's a spot in the middle of the foot that can
help control diabetes, and next to that is the fresh-breath button.
Foot massages sure do feel great. But "feel great" and "cure
halitosis" are two different things.
As summed up in a study of over 250 adults, published in November-
December 2009 issue of the journal Heart & Lung, reflexology and other
massage techniques had no effect for heart surgery patients on
postoperative mood, pain, anxiety, hospital stay and several other
measures. (Actually, anxiety was lower in the group not getting the
foot massage.)
This study follows systematic reviews published in September 2009 in
the Medical Journal of Australia and in June 2008 by Taiwanese
researchers in the Journal of Advanced Nursing finding no evidence
that reflexology helps any condition.
(3) Homeopathy
Homeopathy is the use of physically impossible or implausible
dilutions of medicines — or, poisons, actually, for homeopathy's main
tenet is "like kills like" — to cure just about anything. Numerous
studies in 2009 found homeopathy to be either useless or marginally
better than a placebo. But results tilt towards the "useless" side
when the studies are bigger and the diseases are more serious.
In April in the journal Intervention Review, British researchers
reported that there's no evidence to support the use of homeopathy to
treat the adverse effects of cancer treatment. In June in the journal
Primary Care, a systematic review found homeopathy to be ineffective
for weight loss. In October in the Annals of Oncology, more
researchers reported no benefit from homeopathy in cancer treatment.
And a medical perspective in JAMA in October detailed the lack of
oversight for homeopathic products. (Maybe that's why they don't
work.)
Also, in August 2009, the World Health Organization felt the need to
make an official statement warning against the use of homeopathy for
serious diseases, such as HIV, TB and malaria, after word spread that
homeopathy was being promoted in some developing countries.
To be fair, the Faculty of Homeopathy, a UK-based professional
society, lists numerous randomized, controlled trials on its website
from previous years demonstrating the efficacy of homeopathy. If you
want lots of positive results, you can always subscribe to the journal
Homeopathy. And so the debate continues.
(4) Magnetic therapy
Unlike many alternative therapies that come with ample amounts of good
intentions, magnetic therapy seems like an outright scam. Most
manufacturers know the magnets have no proven benefit for health, and
yet magnets are added to everything from headbands to back braces to
shoe inserts.
The basic premise, that magnets somehow improve blood flow, defies
physics. The iron in your blood is bound to hemoglobin and is not
attracted to magnets of any strength. This is a good thing. Otherwise
you'd blow up in an MRI machine, with magnets thousands of times more
powerful than your shoe insert.
Also, the magnets in most magnetic therapeutic devices are far too
weak to penetrate the skin, particularly through clothing such as
socks. Simply cover a magnetic shoe insert with a sock and try to
attract something as light as a paper clip.
Nevertheless, some people swear by them, and some researchers still
have the stamina to test these despite decades of negative results.
And so, as published in August 2009 in Rheumatology International
Clinical and Experimental Investigations, magnetic therapy did not
improve the chronic pain associated with fibromyalgia.
The deathblow to magnet therapy should have been the large,
randomized, double-blinded study on pain published in 2007 in
Anesthesia & Analgesia. Yet sales of therapeutic magnets remain legal.
(5) Kava
Herbs hold great healing promise. Many common drugs, such as aspirin
and digitalin, were either once or continue to be synthesized from
botanical herbs. Yet herbs can be deadly, too. Kava is one such herb,
taken for relaxation. When mixed with alcohol, it can kill you. This
is likely not the level of relaxation you are after. Also, the leaves
and stems (but not the roots) can be toxic to the liver. Kava is
indeed banned in many countries through Europe, where herbal medicine
is otherwise popular.
In systematic reviews of kava and other herbals published in September
2009 in the journal Drugs and in Integrative Cancer Therapies,
researchers found kava to be more trouble than it is worth, because it
interferes with real medicines for cancer and other diseases.
Kava is not without its merits. Kava root is mixed into a drink in
many South Pacific countries with few adverse effects, other than
those that mimic alcohol abuse. Some studies have shown kava's value
in treating anxiety and depression from a specially prepared root
extract. But despite the availability of kava on supermarket shelves,
because of potential toxicity and drug interference, it is best to
check with a doctor before self-prescribing this herb.
Conclusion: Big bad mainstream medicine
Mainstream medicine has its faults and its critics. But consider how
HIV/AIDS has transitioned from a death sentence to a manageable
chronic disease in about a decade, with a cure surely on the horizon.
Advances in the treatment of HIV did not involve understanding its qi
or lack of qi or vibrational energy or the imbalance it causes in some
holistic manner. The search for a cure has entailed isolating the
cause (a retrovirus) and then building upon previous knowledge of DNA,
RNA, enzymes, transcription and the inner workings of the cell (all
Nobel-prize winning efforts) to create antiretroviral treatments that
employ nucleoside analogue and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase
inhibitors and protease inhibitors.
Sound complicated? It is. People go to school for a long time to learn
how this works. And the medicine does have nasty side effects. But it
works better than a foot massage.
Kitty P
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:52d9b0e3-e795-4e49...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
By Christopher Wanjek,
LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist
?If there's a silver lining in the continued popularity of non-
scientific healing techniques, it's the fact that the scientific
community is at long last putting these so-called treatments and
potions through vigorous testing. And one by one they fail to live up
to their purported benefits.
Here are five woo-woo alternative therapies that were debunked or
denounced in 2009.
(1) Reiki
Reiki is not an outright scam; the practitioners seem to believe in
what they are doing. In the end the soft music and whispery speech of
the practitioners during the reiki sessions merely helps one relax.
--------------------------------------
I am only sharing this because I have done a few websites for Reiki
practitioners and had the research at hand. Up until the sites I had no idea
what it was and am about as new age as my dog btw. Pure Reiki bills itself
as a palliative accompaniment to medical treatments. Two of the
practitioners came with me to the hospital for surgery I had last year. My
blood pressure went incredibly down when they showed up and began (the
surgeon was considering delaying the surgery because it was so high prior to
that), the surgery lasted 20 minutes less than anticipated, I didn't need
pain medication afterwards, and the wound healed two weeks earlier than the
surgeon anticipated. After a year, I barely have a scar. It could be
coincidence I suppose. Even if it's psychosomatic, then I say bring it on.
Um - there was no whispery speech.
Autonomic Nervous System Changes in Reiki Treatment
http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/research.html#3
Esoteric therapy or quantum interaction?
http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/research.html#3
Reiki. A complementary therapy for nursing practice
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11324176
Healing touch: applications in the acute care setting
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11040557
Using Reiki to Support Surgical Patients
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10330795
Reiki In Hospitals
http://www.thehealingpages.com/Articles/ReikiinHospitals.html
Using Reiki to manage pain: a preliminary report
http://www.soulworkings.com/reiki_research.html#10.html
(National Institute of Health) National Center for Complimentary and
Alternative Medicine http://nccam.nih.gov/
Bibliography
Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary and
alternative medicine use among adults: United States, 2002. CDC Advance Data
Report #343. 2004.
DiNucci EM. Energy healing: a complementary treatment for orthopaedic and
other conditions. Orthopaedic Nursing. 2005;24(4):259-269.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16056170?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Engebretson J, Wardell DW. Experience of a Reiki session. Alternative
Therapies in Health and Medicine. 2002;8(2):48-53.
http://tinyurl.com/yhdpa62
LaTorre MA. The use of Reiki in psychotherapy. Perspectives in Psychiatric
Care. 2005;41(4):184-187. http://tinyurl.com/kn3h5y
Miles P. Reiki for mind, body, and spirit support of cancer patients.
Advances in Mind-Body Medicine. 2007;22(2):20-26.
http://tinyurl.com/yl7kl3y
Miles P, True G. Reiki-review of a biofield therapy history, theory,
practice, and research. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine.
2003;9(2):62-72. http://tinyurl.com/yl7kl3y
Nield-Anderson L, Ameling A. Reiki: a complementary therapy for nursing
practice.Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services.
2001;39(4):42-49. http://tinyurl.com/yhwscc4
The efficacy of Reiki hands-on healing: improvements in spleen and nervous
system function as quantified by electrodermal screening; Brewitt, B.,
Vittletoe, T., Alternative Therapies 1997 July; Vol 3 No 4.
Reiki: A complementary therapy for life; Bullock, Marlene RN BSN, American
Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, Jan 1997, Vol 14(1) pp 31-32
One Nurse's evolution as healer; Quinn, Janet RN MA, American Journal of
Nursing, Apr 1979 662-665
Reiki-Plus natural healing: an ethnographic experimental study, Schlitz, M.,
Braud, w., PSI Research 1985 Sept/Dec 4(3-4) 100-123.
A study of Reiki, an energy field treatment, using Rogers' Science, Thorton,
L., Vol VIII No 3.
A randomized double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a
population with advanced AIDS; Sicher, F., Targ, E., The Western Journal of
Medicine, Dec 1998 Vol 169 No 6 pp356-363
Reiki Research Study; Aliwalas, Emma MD, Youmans, Donna CMI
Trends in Alternative Medicine in the United States, 1990-1997; Eisenberg,
David MD, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998 Vol 280 pp
1569-1575
Reiki energy seen in dentistry, Nassen, Don DDS.
A contemporary view of alternative healing modalities, Engebretson, Joan DPH
RN. Nurse Practitioner Sep 1993 Vol 18 No 9 pp51-55
Reiki: an ancient touch therapy; VanSell, Sharon RN EdD, RN Feb 1996 pp57-59
Using Reiki to support surgical patients; Alandydy, Patricia BSN RN, Journal
of Nursing Care Quality 1999 Vol 13(4) pp89-91
Hands-on healing; Bower, Peter MD. Patient Care, Dec 1997
Using Reiki to manage pain; a preliminary report; Olson K. Cancer Prevention
and Control 1997 Jun;1(2) 108-13 (20 ref)
The effect of complementary healing therapy on postoperative pain after
surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth; Wirth DP. Complemenary
Therapies in Medicine 1993 Jul; 1(3) 133-8 (38 ref)
Theraputic Touch: investigation of a practitioiner; Glickman R. Scientific
Review of Alternative Medicine 1998 Spring-Summer; 2(1): 43-7 (25 ref)
Reiki: bridging traditional and complementary healing techniques; Behar M.
OT Practice 1997 Feb; 2(2) 22-3 (3 ref)
Health Care and consumer choice: medical and alternative therapies; Kelner
M.
Social Science and Medicine 1997 Jul; 45(2) 203-12 (30 ref)
Comparison of Nurses and alternative healers; Engebretson J. Image: Journal
of Nursing Scholarship 1996 Summer; 28(2) 95-9 (14 ref)
Reiki therapy. Whitsitt T. Journal of Christian Nursing vol 15 #1 (1998
Winter): 12-3
Who seeks alternative health care? A profile of the users of five modes of
treatment. Kelner M; Journal of alternative and complementary Medicine vol
3, no 2 (1997 Summer) 127-40
Hypnosis and Reiki, Rosentiel L. Journal of Hypnotism 1991 Dec; 8-10
"Skeptical" nurse finds wellness with Reiki; Olstinski M. Nursingmatters
1997 Jul; 8(7):13
Reiki - the gift of love, healing and wholeness; Retzlaff N. Nursingmatters
1998 Feb: 9(2): 14-5
.
Lee
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:52d9b0e3-e795-4e49...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>http://www.livescience.com/health/091208-alternative-medicine.html
by this type of convoluted "logic"
i guess i shouldn't suppose a
decent heart transplant from the
amateur surgeons in my neighborhood
and that in and of itself disqualifies all
surgery as being efficacious.
i practice qigong and i suppose that
the fact that i have no physical problems
and only one minor cold in the last twelve
years means nothing against this overwhelming
evidence of the uselessness of all such practices.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:52d9b0e3-e795-4e49...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.livescience.com/health/091208-alternative-medicine.html
>
> By Christopher Wanjek,
> LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist
>
> If there's a silver lining in the continued popularity of non-
> scientific healing techniques, it's the fact that the scientific
> community is at long last putting these so-called treatments and
> potions through vigorous testing. And one by one they fail to live up
> to their purported benefits.
Well, yes. But, they may be more enjoyable and less toxic alternatives to
the industrial-medical complex's reliance on placebos and treatment for the
sake of treatment. As an example, studies have shown that CBT is less
effective than Buddhism and the horrors of extending life while allowing
quality of life to suffer are obvious. I have no issue with questions being
asked but are they they right questions? Perhaps, a little less arrogance
and vested interest all round would help.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:52d9b0e3-e795-4e49...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Woo-Woo Took a Beating in 2009
> >http://www.livescience.com/health/091208-alternative-medicine.html
>
> by this type of convoluted "logic"
> i guess i shouldn't suppose a
> decent heart transplant from the
> amateur surgeons in my neighborhood
> and that in and of itself disqualifies all
> surgery as being efficacious.
>
> i practice qigong and i suppose that
> the fact that i have no physical problems
> and only one minor cold in the last twelve
Yes, that means nothing! That's just the kind of bullshit false
causality that fosters woo-woo. It's called the post hoc ergo propter
hoc fallacy. You haven't got sick except for a cold in several years.
Then you arbitrarily pick exactly one of your habits (and it tends to
be a woo-woo habit), and then you claim that this is some sort of
evidence that your woo-woo habit had anything to do with your not
getting cancer or pneumonia or the swine flu or whatever.
I've gotten a cold or two, but other than that, I haven't been sick or
seen a doctor since college until last year just for a check-up
because my dad insisted, and they did tons of bloodwork, and I'm in
perfect health. It would be idiotic for me to claim that it was from
any one thing. Is it the Vipassana retreats? The trips to the gym? The
weekly bicycle rides to the pub, or even the pints of ale and porter
at the pub? Is it my not eating dead animals? Is it my not having
kids? Is it my not taking any prescription drugs for anything, nor
even using caffeine? Or is it my smoking good pot and drinking fine
ales? Is it my dad's genes (he's twice my age and in perfect health)?
I could weave a bullshit woo-woo story about any of those things.
I think practicing chi gong is great, just like yoga, btw. But if you
think that you have any evidence or indication that doing funky
Chinese yoga caused you not to get the flu or lots of colds, then
you're more of a gullible nutter than Keynes!
And yet silly people make such claims all the time. The rule of thumb
is this: the longer the temporal scope (i.e., years versus hours), the
more shaky and ridiculous any such claims are. If you do some exercise
like chi gong, and then you feel better right afterward, great. But
claiming that it has anything to do with your not getting colds is
nonsensical and superstitious nonsense.
Whatever you do, whether it's chanting Hare Krishna or praying on a
rosary or getting season tickets to hockey games, you can always have
said the same thing and then used that phony sarcasm that woo-woo-ists
use to cover their bullshit, and say "yeah, like that's just a
coincidence". Oh, and even the momentary good feelings you feel may be
just from stretching and exercising, and whether it was chi gong or
yoga or pilates wouldn't make a damned bit of difference. But you
can't know that, because you aren't looking at similar conditions of
all three and then a control group that watches tv or something.
So to finish your sarcastic bullshit claim:
> against this overwhelming
> evidence of the uselessness of all such practices.
That is, you're implying that your randomly picking one of hundreds of
activities of yours and assigning it a salient role of causality in
your not getting the flu or whatever, and now you can sarcastically
dismiss tons of research that is unbiased and repeated because of your
biased and arbitrary invocation of the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy! Amazing!
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> denounced in 2009.
>
> (1) Reiki
> Reiki is not an outright scam; the practitioners seem to believe in
> what they are doing. In the end the soft music and whispery speech of
> the practitioners during the reiki sessions merely helps one relax.
> --------------------------------------
>
> I am only sharing this because I have done a few websites for Reiki
> practitioners and had the research at hand. Up until the sites I had no idea
> what it was and am about as new age as my dog btw. Pure Reiki bills itself
> as a palliative accompaniment to medical treatments.
Now if you do anything as an "accompaniment" to medical treatments, I
have no problem with that, and even encourage it. I want to be clear
about this matter, because that's not where I have the problem.
You say "reiki bills itself as", but only people promote these things,
and not all promoters of reiki bill it as only to 'accompany' real
medicing. The people who push reiki or aromatherapy, or candle-
lighting, incense-burning rituals to accompany medical treatments are
fine and even helpful. The medical scene is rather sterile and not
very fuzzy and emotional, especially in hospitals, so adding rituals
and practices that allow one to be more relaxed and calm and feel
nurtured are great.
However, I suspect this is much more rare than you imagine. Now you
did use the disqualifier 'pure', but then I'm going to say that there
ain't no 'pure reiki' among all the reiki you can get in these parts.
Why, just about every reiki practitioner I've met, the ones around
here, are anti-science and anti-doctor, and they insult the medical
profession, demonize doctors and meds, and claim that all doctors
don't want to cure people, but only want to make money; and then they
offer woo-woo miracle cures, and claim the reiki will cure them.
That's the problem. What you have stated isn't. As a harmless
emotional supplement to the emotionally sterile medical treatment
content, this stuff is fine, and it's just an alternative to the
traditional praying or other religious support that comforts people.
> Two of the
> practitioners came with me to the hospital for surgery I had last year. My
> blood pressure went incredibly down when they showed up and began (the
> surgeon was considering delaying the surgery because it was so high prior to
> that), the surgery lasted 20 minutes less than anticipated, I didn't need
> pain medication afterwards, and the wound healed two weeks earlier than the
> surgeon anticipated. After a year, I barely have a scar. It could be
> coincidence I suppose.
Stories like that are almost always coincidence, but they seem not to
be so because of confirmation bias. If there is a coincidence, then we
jump on and make a causal claim about our favorite woo-woo. If you'd
had a normal experience or even if you would have had complications,
and your blood pressure had risen instead and you took longer to heal
than expected, you wouldn't be saying "that reiki is pure bullshit".
You would simply would have ignored it. So people only pay attention
when there is a coincidence, and then forgetting the part that that's
when they pay attention and make note of a connection, it looks as if
it's overwhelming evidence that there is some connection, when there
isn't any at all.
That all said, lots of things could have lowered your blood pressure,
including new-age music, your mom singing you a lullaby, a family
photo album, the familiar smell of your favorite cookies, or flavor of
tea or incense, etc.
> Even if it's psychosomatic, then I say bring it on.
Why not know the truth, so if it's psychosomatic and you know that,
then you could pick your own ritual and use that instead of the woo-
woo that's dictated by someone else and costs money, you see? If you
know it's psychosomatic, then you might get a cup of your favorite
tea, light a candle, play some special music, etc., and it would work
just as well. No need to add superstition to the mix. It isn't the
superstition or belief, anyway, it's the context. That is, skeptics
who don't believe in woo-woo have the same placebo effect as gullible
believers when exposed to a context of dim lights or candles, soft
music, a nurturing voice of the practitioner, etc. If you know that,
you don't have to have any blind faith beliefs in woo-woo at all, and
you can make yourself whatever healing context or ritual you wish to
max out the psychosomatic effect.
> Um - there was no whispery speech.
Heh! No shaking of rattles either?
--DharmaTroll
> Autonomic Nervous System Changes in Reiki Treatmenthttp://www.reiki.org/reikinews/research.html#3
>
> Esoteric therapy or quantum interaction?http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/research.html#3
>
> Reiki. A complementary therapy for nursing practicehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11324176
>
> Healing touch: applications in the acute care settinghttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11040557
>
> Using Reiki to Support Surgical Patientshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10330795
>
> Reiki In Hospitalshttp://www.thehealingpages.com/Articles/ReikiinHospitals.html
>
> Using Reiki to manage pain: a preliminary reporthttp://www.soulworkings.com/reiki_research.html#10.html
Lee
>Yes, that means nothing! That's just the kind of bullshit false
>causality that fosters woo-woo.
let's examine some dramadroll causality.
since there are a lot of amateur reiki
practicioners then a couple of random
studies disqualifies reiki. good start.
so following this "logic" i can safely
assume that since there are tone deaf
people there never could have been
a bach or a beethoven, even if beethoven
did write a lot of music while deaf, and since
there are people who can't draw a straight
line there could never be a michaelangelo
or a davinci.
i guess this is the same dramadroll "logic"
that assumes without evidence that i don't
have robert's book and assumes people
are nutters and lunatics without evidence,
and assumes that rocks trees and kittens
are "real" [whatever illogical, idealistic meaning
dramadroll wants to assume to this]
without evidence too.
carry on pot kettle black boy.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
Oh I agree with all those points, Charles. I think the extending of
life a few more weeks at all cost is ridiculous. And if you're going
to use placebos to help, then I agree, pick your own, whether it's
Buddhism or something else. (Btw, if you're doing Buddhism to not get
the flu, you're an idiot. If you have any amount of intelligence or
sanity, you're doing Buddhism to lessen your craving, aversion, and
delusion and hence the unnecessary suffering in your life. Or you
wanna meet cool spiritual chicks.) As I replied earlier to Kitty:
<<Why not know the truth, so if it's psychosomatic and you know that,
then you could pick your own ritual and use that instead of the woo-
woo that's dictated by someone else and costs money, you see? If you
know it's psychosomatic, then you might get a cup of your favorite
tea, light a candle, play some special music, etc., and it would work
just as well. No need to add superstition to the mix. It isn't the
superstition or belief, anyway, it's the context. That is, skeptics
who don't believe in woo-woo have the same placebo effect as gullible
believers when exposed to a context of dim lights or candles, soft
music, a nurturing voice of the practitioner, etc. If you know that,
you don't have to have any blind faith beliefs in woo-woo at all, and
you can make yourself whatever healing context or ritual you wish to
max out the psychosomatic effect.>>
And there's another reason why placebos in the form of pills aren't as
effective. When you trust the doctor, and see your doctor as a caring,
nurturing healer who wants to heal you physically and spiritually,
then whatever placebo you get from him/her is going to probably feel
effective because you expect it too. However, woo-woo-ists have spread
a mistrust, a negative stereotype, and even hatred of doctors and
medicine, so that when a patient with a history of vague, difficult-to-
diagnose complaints who is sure that whatever therapy is prescribed
will do little to battle the problem, those low expectations are
inevitably met, and the placebo might even backfire (the nocebo
effect). And it's in the interest of the woo-woo-ists to mislead folks
and get them to distrust doctors, as it means more business for them
and their pseudo-science quackery. And then there is the trick of
giving someone woo-woo, and if they get sicker, blame it on something
else, but if they spontaneously feel better, credit the woo-woo.
That's what's known as 'anecdotal evidence' and it's worthless and not
evidence for anything at all (except for how clueless and/or deceitful
the woo-woo snake oil peddlers are).
--DharmaTroll
Lee Rudolph
>On Dec 26, 10:10 am, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
...
>> I am only sharing this because I have done a few websites for Reiki
>> practitioners and had the research at hand. Up until the sites I had no idea
>> what it was and am about as new age as my dog btw. Pure Reiki bills itself
>> as a palliative accompaniment to medical treatments.
>
>Now if you do anything as an "accompaniment" to medical treatments, I
>have no problem with that, and even encourage it. I want to be clear
>about this matter, because that's not where I have the problem.
>
>You say "reiki bills itself as", but only people promote these things,
Soylent Green bills itself as food!
>Stories like that are almost always coincidence, but they seem not to
>be so because of confirmation bias.
Yeah, give a Sicilian chick like Kitty a pretty white dress and a party,
and she'll believe anything you tell her.
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:62256816-0e4d-445e...@r12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Yes, that means nothing! That's just the kind of bullshit false
> >causality that fosters woo-woo.
>
> let's examine some dramadroll causality.
Ah, here comes Loser Lee. As crazy as Keynes, except Keynes is a
funny, and presumably nice fellow, who likes to argue for the
absurdest of the absurd. Whereas Loser Lee is Evil Incarnate, a sort
of Sarah Palin with a Penis (or not), who is out to smear science and
reason and promote superstition.
> since there are a lot of amateur reiki
> practicioners then a couple of random
> studies disqualifies reiki. good start.
No, there are not 2 studies, there are dozens of them. They do tests
with double-blind parameters and random samples. They are repeated by
independent researchers.
Now, you're going to seriously argue that because there are more
witchdoctors than scientists doing rigorous tests that the
witchdoctors must be right, that it's a matter of consensus? Then the
Pope wins, as there are more Catholic Priests than there are woo-woo
witchdoctors. And you're in need of quite an exorcism, Loser Lee.
> so following this "logic" i can safely
> assume that since there are tone deaf
> people there never could have been
> a bach or a beethoven,
Sounds like Sarah Palin talk to me.
No, following my logic, you can ignore consensus, and look at facts
and methodology. When a huge number of people, all biased, hold a
superstition, and count hits and ignore tons of misses, and then when
research is done that doesn't bias the results, and compares hits to
misses and finds over and over and over again that the hits are no
more than one would expect randomly, that the woo-woo isn't more
effective than a sugar-pill, then you go with the research, and you
with very high confidence throw out the woo-woo as pseudo-science
which has been debunked.
> i guess this is the same dramadroll "logic"
> that assumes without evidence that i don't
> have robert's book and assumes people
> are nutters and lunatics without evidence,
Oh, you're that same asshole with a different name? I saw a list
asshole who insults and abuses people say that he saw something in the
book Robert helped with, and I was compassionately trying to protect
Robert from a cruel joke played by someone who is a rude, insulting
asshole on the list. When it turned out that this poster wasn't being
mean, and quoted the book, I said I was wrong, and I'm actually happy
I was wrong. So you claim to be the same asshole with a new name, eh
Loser Lee?
And now your argument is that because ignorant assholes are nice or
helpful sometimes, that means that crystal channeling or magnet-
therapy or reiki must be factual? Duh. I don't think that works. More
like it shows that DharmaTroll admits when he makes mistakes, unlike
woo-woo-ists who ignore misses and only display testimony of hits, to
deceive the gullible into thinking that their magical snake oil is
effective, when it is only pseudo-scientific quackery.
Now return to the rock you crawled under, fool.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Hah.
And hey, I didn't say that. In fact, the way she worded things, I
agree with Kitty. My problem is precisely when this kind of woo-woo is
billed as "alternative" instead of "complimentary". Because it's not
an alternative, and because it can be helpful when added to the
sterile context of clinical medicine. (Yes, I know you were making a
cute barb, but I want to discern between these two definitions, as
this is a thread that attracts nutters and blind faith whack jobs out
of the woodwork, so I want to be clear about this crucial distinction,
Lee.)
--DharmaTroll
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Dec 26, 2:55 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Well, yes. But, they may be more enjoyable and less toxic alternatives to
>> the industrial-medical complex's reliance on placebos and treatment for
>> the sake of treatment. As an example, studies have shown that CBT is less
>> effective than Buddhism and the horrors of extending life while allowing
>> quality of life to suffer are obvious. I have no issue with questions
>> being asked but are they they right questions? Perhaps, a little less
>> arrogance and vested interest all round would help.
> Oh I agree with all those points, Charles. I think the extending of
> life a few more weeks at all cost is ridiculous. And if you're going
> to use placebos to help, then I agree, pick your own, whether it's
> Buddhism or something else. [...]
>
> [...] And then there is the trick of giving someone woo-woo, and if they
> get sicker, blame it on something else, but if they spontaneously feel
> better, credit the woo-woo. That's what's known as 'anecdotal evidence'
> and it's worthless and not evidence for anything at all (except for how
> clueless and/or deceitful the woo-woo snake oil peddlers are).
I assume a certain level of understanding about logic and evidence so will
leave it to someone else to bore on about fallacies and evidence.
This is orthogonal to the topic but, I note, people like David Cameron and
his Tory pals rail against "authoritarianism" and promote "localism". While
this is self-serving propaganda on one level they're none to keen admitting
the value of gold standards and problems with balkanisation. Unless, of
course, it's *their* scheme and greases *their* way up the polls.
Most people's psychology "fixes" around the age of 12. This is mostly middle
brain stuff geared towards power and relationships. Funny, then, that people
who wish to be "leaders" spend so little time attending to this which takes
us full circle back to the first paragraph.
It's notable that both quality of life, prevention, bedside manner, and
costs are hot topics. My view is that the left parties (Labour and Democrat)
has the edge on this and the right (Conservative and Republican) don't. At
least, I've seen nothing in the positions of individuals and party policies
which convince me. Perhaps, they assume we're as ignorant and stupid as they
are but the electorate aren't quite buying that, hence, the recent success
with the American healthcare bill and Cameron not sealing the deal.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> Ah, here comes Loser Lee. As crazy as Keynes, except Keynes is a
> funny, and presumably nice fellow, who likes to argue for the
> absurdest of the absurd. Whereas Loser Lee is Evil Incarnate, a sort
> of Sarah Palin with a Penis (or not), who is out to smear science and
> reason and promote superstition.
> And now your argument is that because ignorant assholes are nice or
> helpful sometimes, that means that crystal channeling or magnet-
> therapy or reiki must be factual? Duh. I don't think that works. More
> like it shows that DharmaTroll admits when he makes mistakes, unlike
> woo-woo-ists who ignore misses and only display testimony of hits, to
> deceive the gullible into thinking that their magical snake oil is
> effective, when it is only pseudo-scientific quackery.
That's reasonable. In political terms this might be, say, like comparing
Wedgie Benn (genuine but wrong) and Daniel Hannan (presentable but shitty).
Genius and insanity are merely an atom apart but like the 0.0001% difference
in DNA between a chimp and a human that 0.0001% is important.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Lee
>Ah, here comes Loser Lee.
hilarious opinion loser troll.
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 26, 2:55 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:52d9b0e3-e795-4e49...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Woo-Woo Took a Beating in 2009
>> >http://www.livescience.com/health/091208-alternative-medicine.html
>>
>> > By Christopher Wanjek,
>> > LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist
>>
>> > ?If there's a silver lining in the continued popularity of non-
Social primates (and even dogs and cats) require petting and
touch to be physically and mentally healthy. Without it, alienation
and anxiety build up, and stress diseases worsen. The flea finding
of baboons is the barber and the salon for us. (And also the smiles
and small talk.) No woo woo about it. So there is hidden value in
a mate, children, good friends, and caring people. They have influences
not easy to measure, but impossible to live well without.
So my prescription is - if you want to have a friend, be a friend.
Practice kindness and generousity at every opportunity. It doesn't
cost much, and it often pays off big. Be the sort of person that you'd
like to have around all the time. Like may attract like. But even if it
doesn't, you have to live with yourself anyway. That's a blessing or a curse.
Kitty P
Not a rattle, incense, or crystal in sight. They practice straight Usui
Reiki. I do self-Reiki now, which isn't unlike meditation, but with a
physical experience more like acupuncture.
This has been enjoyable to read. You are right that we probably all have
practices that soothe us whether it involved KY or chocolate cake. I'll also
believe you about the wackadoodles you're referring to, because there are
many of those in all fields, including the medical profession. But I think
it's important to be careful not to try to rationalize medical science as
the only 'way'. It's sort of creepy and reminiscent of talking to a Jesus
Freak when people get into that mode..
The International Journal of Clinical Practice wasn't ended with,
"Discussion: In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and
independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials
suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate
study design and poor reporting.Conclusion: In conclusion, the evidence is
insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any
condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven". It isn't
disproven either. They just haven't studied it enough to get enough data. I
think the other study was one I read earlier this year on there being no
effect on fibromyalgia - which no one else can treat either.
I'm not particularly a believer or advocate of Reiki, but I get suspicious
whenever the medical profession insists that a low or no cost modality is
ineffective. Like most things related to the medical field that don't
involve making a heap of money, who is going to study it effectively without
a profit motive? Kitty
Kitty P
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hh5toj$q3o$1...@reader1.panix.com...
You're going to hell Lee Rudolph.
Sincerely, Sister Ignacious
Hidden Draggin
I bet that SQUEEKA has an equivalet effect to Reiki if done
right, repeatedly, and with someone you love.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hansford
CEO of the Brown and Mushy Corporation
http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
Hidden Draggin
You forgot the SQUEEKA...pretty white dress, a party, and
SQUEEKA!
Kitty P
"Hidden Draggin" <an...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hh6hna$3cf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> CEO of the Brown and Mushy Corporation
> http://hiddendraggin.posterous.com/
That, my friend, would have a much better effect. heh
DharmaTroll
Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when you
check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
> The International Journal of Clinical Practice wasn't ended with,
> "Discussion: In total, the trial data for any one condition are scarce and
> independent replications are not available for each condition. Most trials
> suffered from methodological flaws such as small sample size, inadequate
> study design and poor reporting.Conclusion: In conclusion, the evidence is
> insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any
> condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven".
> It isn't disproven either.
> They just haven't studied it enough to get enough data.
They've studied it in plenty of other studies. More data are always
good, but the way pseudo-science works, there are always excuses when
the researchers fail to reject the null hypothesis (that the woo-woo
doesn't work).
Acupuncture is a great example for that. I was convinced there was
something to it, and distinguished it from such nonsense as 'crystal
energy healing' and 'homeopathy', as it did better than placebo in
many cases. And then someone decided to go for a more interesting
test, and compare acupuncture with sham acupuncture, where you might
poke people in random locations with toothpicks. Well, both
acupuncture and sham (random toothpick poking) acupuncture did a lot
better than placebo, but the sham acupuncture did just as well as the
'authentic' acupuncture with its special points and babble of chi and
'meridians' (nonsensical stuff which doesn't correlate to anything
real). And then that test has been repeated, by different researchers
and different countries, with the same results. So it turns out that
acupuncture is woo-woo to the core, and getting someone to poke you
with toothpicks randomly will have the same pain reduction and make
you feel just as good.
> I think the other study was one I read earlier this year on there being
> no effect on fibromyalgia - which no one else can treat either.
>
> I'm not particularly a believer or advocate of Reiki,
Good, then I won't hafta perform an exorcism on you.
> but I get suspicious
> whenever the medical profession insists that a low or no cost modality is
> ineffective. Like most things related to the medical field that don't
> involve making a heap of money, who is going to study it effectively without
> a profit motive? Kitty
And yet you don't get suspicious when you find that rather than
treatment that has been researched and documented by real medical
professionals, you don't get, like, a thousand times more suspicious
when you hear about this woo-woo that was created by Mikao Usui
(1865-1926), a schizophrenic who heard voices that told him about
magical healing powers? That's the inventor of Reiki. That doesn't
freak you out, yet you think that accredited researchers are what,
bribed into covering up the magic woo-woo? Yeah, in cases like
research on drugs like marijuana, if you say it's harmless, the
government cuts your funding, and there is bias. But in terms of this
kind of woo-woo, nobody is paying off researchers to cover up anything
-- that's absurd. And if they showed it to work, they'd get lots of
publicity and attention, so there are rewards for positive results.
Rather, don't you think that the woo-woo nutter who heard voices and
made up this stuff hasn't stumbled onto some miracle cure that is a
rival of medicine but rather is a crock of shit which is perpetuated
solely by the placebo effect and superstitious New-Age folks who
swallow anecdotal stories?
--DharmaTroll
Kitty P
--DharmaTroll
======
Well heck - and we need to read a little more carefully there fella.
What I was saying is that there hasn't been reliable research on what you
call most of the woo-woo. Why would there be? Only a few people pay any
attention to it, and it's for the most part harmless. But it sounds like you
might put a little too much faith in medical research, which is often paid
for by companies who wish certain results. It isn't that I think there is a
conspiracy - just a system that could lend itself to potential problems.
DharmaTroll
Actually, a lot of people pay attention to this stuff. The most
interesting case is astrology. About 300 studies have been done, and
they haven't found anything at all linking astrology to anything more
than randomness. One can then do meta-analysis on the studies to look
for any indication that there is anything true to any of the woo-woo
involved. Possibly in reiki, we don't have enough studies to be so
thorough, but astrology is something that is so popular (every
newspaper has a horrorscope) that it's been studied and debunked and
studied and debunked, and there are still zillions of believers.
And your personal attack that I put "faith" in medical research paid
by companies to lie is a really strong accusation. I have no 'faith';
rather, I'm looking at studies. These aren't tests of new drugs that
companies are trying to push through. And the researchers have more
incentive to get fame and fortune if they can demonstrate a woo-woo
treatment to work. It would be a landmark, like finding life on other
planets. No, that blanket New-Age dismissal of well-controlled
research that then is duplicated by other independent research
universities cancels out your claim. And again(!!!!) you want to
suggest a grandiose world-wide conspiracy (not to mention the insult
against me) rather than consider that the woo-woo for which there is
no evidence comes from a nutter who heard voices that told him about
healing powers, and then was passed on by religious believers who go
only on biased anecdotal stories?
No, Kitty, again, as for "a system that could lend itself to potential
problems", that system has a hell of a lot of checks and balances and
rigor in terms of getting random samples, and performing double-blind
tests, etc., and independent teams of researchers that fiercely
compete and would love to one-up the big universities and make a name
for themselves -- and you're putting this up against woo-woo magic
created by a nutter who heard voices. All I can say to you Kitty, is,
are you out of your frakking mind?
Btw, no matter how much evidence you have that there is nothing to the
woo-woo, believers get that much more crazy and strong in their
assertions (i.e., they have Keynes' mentality). Indeed, as I said
before, the only cases we have of research not being revealed is when
research for a new drug doesn't show up as effective, and such
research has been repressed before, so that they could still market
the drug; but this isn't research by a drug company, nor is it for
their drug, and I know of no case where positive results have ever
been suppressed or tampered with. If you really are going for a
worldwide conspiracy of competing researchers that do unbiased tests
versus a crackpot who hears voices and his faithful followers, then
accusing me of simple-minded "faith" is about ironic as it gets: you'd
better look again in the mirror on that one, Kitty!
While in this case, sure, it's reasonable to want more research, but
after 100 studies come up empty, are you still going to make up the
"on the take from big bad greedy companies" bullshit story? There are
about 300 such serious studies on astrology, and astrology is batting,
um, zero for 300. But the astrologers just pile the excuses higher and
deeper. Every crack-pot has that excuse memorized, and it just doesn't
work.
I'm always ready to find some new breakthrough in science, and there
will be one if some allegedly woo-woo pseudo-science turns out to
really work. But again, then it will be science at that point. And the
ones who demonstrate it will get a million bucks from my hero James
Randi, and probably a Nobel Prize as well. I say, Bring It On! But so
far, nobody has shown any such woo-woo to work. Just excuse and
rationalization and, of course, conspiracy theories. And so, we still
have woo-woo-ists practicing reiki, in buildings that don't have 13th
floors.
--DharmaTroll
Love
dharm...@my-deja.com says...
>
>Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
>placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
>'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when you
>check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
Frakking bullshit Dharmatroll. People don't say "alternative
to science" they say "alternative to medicine" and by that they
mean "alternative to established medical practices" and/or
"alternative to the medical establishment". You've had to bend
the meaning of what people actually say to make your little and
purely grammatical "by definition" point.
--
Love
May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
DharmaTroll
> In article <af6f7b27-9c9c-4013-8eb0-1a6809e9d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>
>
>
> >Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
> >placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
> >'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when you
> >check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
>
> Frakking bullshit Dharmatroll. People don't say "alternative
> to science" they say "alternative to medicine" and by that they
> mean "alternative to established medical practices" and/or
> "alternative to the medical establishment".
Oh, I meant to write "alternative medicine" so stop whining.
And when woo-woo is billed as "alternative medicine", as a result,
people don't get the help they need from real medicine and legitimate
doctors. As I mentioned, I had a friend whose wife died because she
went for "alternative medicine", and the alternative turned out to be
death. The woo-woo-ists talked her out of chemotherapy, and after the
"alternative medicine" sessions, she felt calm and confident and
happy, and then she dropped dead.
Now you want to rebel against the high school principal or the IRS
with your "alternative to the establishment" talk, as if it were about
living in a hippie commune or something. What "alternative" means is
"alternative to having positive results from rigorous, unbiased
testing". In other words, by definition, it's either untested or it's
been tested and it doesn't work and is mere placebo.
> You've had to bend the meaning of what people
> actually say to make your little and
> purely grammatical "by definition" point.
No I didn't bend anything: I'm gonna bend you, though. Heh. I made a
typo typing. In any case, that point is still that pseudo-science is
bullshit, no matter what you pretend to call it. Just don't call it an
alternative to medicine, because it isn't, unless you consider death
an alternative.
--DharmaTroll
Kitty P
--DharmaTroll
=========
Wowsy. Don't hold back.
Kitty
Nobody in Particular
>
> "DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:d1198570-4251-430b-ba85-
fdfb4c...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 27, 2:15 am, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
news:af6f7b27-9c9c-4013...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 26, 9:22 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:0ceadc2b-17c5-44bb-b936-
a3cb0c...@n13g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Isn't that guy amazing?
He throws out tons of personal attacks against others, but whines when
he believes that he perceives the tiniest attack against himself.
They oughta have his picture in the dictionary under "hypocrite".
Charles E Hardwidge
> Actually, a lot of people pay attention to this stuff. The most
> interesting case is astrology. About 300 studies have been done, and
> they haven't found anything at all linking astrology to anything more
> than randomness. [...]
>
> And your personal attack that I put "faith" in medical research paid
> by companies to lie is a really strong accusation. I have no 'faith';
> rather, I'm looking at studies. [...]
>
> No, Kitty, again, as for "a system that could lend itself to potential
> problems", that system has a hell of a lot of checks and balances and
> rigor in terms of getting random samples, and performing double-blind
> tests, etc., [...]
It reads better when you trim the verbal diarrhoea.
I'm sure there's a study on it. ;-)
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Kitty P
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:2UOZm.19408$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
snort
Wally Chapman
<smeep>
>> Um - there was no whispery speech.
>
> Heh! No shaking of rattles either?
Hey! *I* shake the rattles around here. I drum, also, as part of my
own healing practice.
I had reikei done on my back about 1995 or so (following an auto
accident in which I was rearended, and it felt good but had no other
effect that I was aware of. I suspect that the proficiency of the
practitioner has a lot to do with the outcome. My insurance paid for
it, though.
Wally
liaM
Reiki being a healthy, thorough and deep massage technique,
it can't do otherwise but provide positive results,
whether curative or purely energising.
DT ends up spinning his wheels, which is what ASsURA do
when they get going. Drive fast, skillfully, but totally
off the wall and prone to road rage.
DharmaTroll
>
> fdfb4c488...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...> On Dec 27, 2:15 am, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:af6f7b27-9c9c-4013...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...>> On Dec 26, 9:22 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:0ceadc2b-17c5-44bb-b936-
>
I never do. That's wouldn't be any fun, Kitty!
> Isn't that guy amazing?
Yeah, I'm awesome.
> He throws out tons of personal attacks against others, but whines when
> he believes that he perceives the tiniest attack against himself.
> They oughta have his picture in the dictionary under "hypocrite".
Yo asshole, I don't care if you throw personal attacks at me. My beef
is if you use it as an argument. Note, I point out that you're an
asshole. But I don't say "since you're an asshole, your argument must
be false." That's what I object to. That's a logical fallacy called
argumentum ad hominem. It's an invalid form of reasoning. If you're
wrong, I try to provide reasons and evidence why you're wrong. But I
don't every say that you're wrong solely on the grounds that you're an
asshole. Got it asshole?
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> Le 12/28/2009 2:15 AM, Wally Chapman a crit :
>
>
>
> > DharmaTroll wrote:
>
> > <smeep>
>
> >>> Um - there was no whispery speech.
>
> >> Heh! No shaking of rattles either?
>
> > Hey! *I* shake the rattles around here. I drum, also, as part of my own
> > healing practice.
>
> > I had reikei done on my back about 1995 or so (following an auto
> > accident in which I was rearended, and it felt good but had no other
> > effect that I was aware of. I suspect that the proficiency of the
> > practitioner has a lot to do with the outcome. My insurance paid for it,
> > though.
>
> > Wally
>
> Reiki being a healthy, thorough and deep massage technique,
> it can't do otherwise but provide positive results,
> whether curative or purely energising.
Well, if that's the case, then it should be billed as massage. I'm not
questioning the benefit from massage, just the woo-woo claims about
Magical Fairy Dust w/American Chi'zze.
Once you say, it's massage, then you have to pretty much dump the
panacea claims, that it cures everything. Massage, on the other hand,
doesn't cure any disease, but always makes you feel better, sure.
--DharmaTroll
liaM
>
> Yo asshole, I don't care if you throw personal attacks at me. My beef
> is if you use it as an argument. Note, I point out that you're an
> asshole. But I don't say "since you're an asshole, your argument must
> be false." That's what I object to. That's a logical fallacy called
> argumentum ad hominem. It's an invalid form of reasoning. If you're
> wrong, I try to provide reasons and evidence why you're wrong. But I
> don't every say that you're wrong solely on the grounds that you're an
> asshole. Got it asshole?
>
> --DharmaTroll
> >
> > DT ends up spinning his wheels, which is what ASsURA do
> > when they get going. Drive fast, skillfully, but totally
> > off the wall and prone to road rage.
:)
DharmaTroll
Actually, I drive skillfully, but never get 'road rage'. I don't
remember the last time I got angry at another driver. Wasn't in this
decade. But I am aggressive at times. When I see someone trying to cut
me off, I swerve just a little toward them and back a couple of times,
to try to convince them that I'm insane, and I can get them to slam on
their brakes usually. But I'm not angry at all. It's simply a tactic
that works well. I don't get angry for real much, but I like to win
always.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Hah. Well, that was fun. But seriously, if you compare (1) a
schizophrenic who hears voices which tell him how to cure diseases
with magical undetectable energies coupled with anecdotes with (2)
rigorous double-blind tests that are repeated by other independent
researchers, which makes more sense? (Of course, option #1 always
makes more sense to Keynes, but I mean to sane folks.)
--DharmaTroll
Kitty P
--DharmaTroll
=============
I don't think you've run into anyone here who is trying to foster a belief
in Rieki - just pointing out different perceptions about the value of
mind/body connection and cynicism of 'some' research, not all. I rather
enjoy your rants. We otherwise mild mannered people have to get it out
sometimes.
Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
went nuts.
Kitty
Ron Fuller
news:2fbbf96d-e3d5-420c...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 27, 3:20�am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
>> In article
>> <af6f7b27-9c9c-4013-8eb0-1a6809e9d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.
> com>,
>> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
>> >placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
>> >'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when
>> >you check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
>>
>> Frakking bullshit Dharmatroll. �People don't say "alternative
>> to science" they say "alternative to medicine" and by that they
>> mean "alternative to established medical practices" and/or
>> "alternative to the medical establishment".
>
> Oh, I meant to write "alternative medicine" so stop whining.
>
> And when woo-woo is billed as "alternative medicine", as a result,
> people don't get the help they need from real medicine and legitimate
> doctors. As I mentioned, I had a friend whose wife died because she
> went for "alternative medicine", and the alternative turned out to be
> death. The woo-woo-ists talked her out of chemotherapy, and after the
> "alternative medicine" sessions, she felt calm and confident and
> happy, and then she dropped dead.
>
>
and i've had plenty of friends that the doctors talked into
chemotherapy and after the sessions they were sick and unhappy
and then they dropped dead.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@cainsquestion.org
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
Lee
"Ron Fuller" <rfu...@freeway.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CEF33F573EEr...@85.214.113.135...
and i've had plenty of friends who didn't
even have cancer who became sick and
Appledog
>
> I don't think you've run into anyone here who is trying to foster a belief
> in Rieki - just pointing out different perceptions about the value of
> mind/body connection and cynicism of 'some' research, not all. I rather
> enjoy your rants. We otherwise mild mannered people have to get it out
> sometimes.
>
> Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
> I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
> went nuts.
Keynes is a fool in that he turns discussions into arguments and
believes anyone with information other than his own is arrogant and/or
stupid.
Anyways, i've been following this thread with some interest. I wanted
to interject a classic passage from "Thoughtcode" before, but now
seems as good a time as any:
-----
From "Thoughtcode" Ch. 2, "Psychic Powers":
There are no Psychic Powers
There is no nerve pathway such that psychic thought transmission could
be received by the brain. Certainly psychic thoughts are not received
through the sense of sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell – these are
senses which read the actual physical world, not psychic energy.
There’s no capability for sight to do anything other than fire on
photons. The other senses are all similar. How would you “smell” a
thought being directed at you psychically? It doesn’t even make sense.
So we see then, that there is no way for a thought to be received by
the brain using the usual assortment of physical senses.
What about direct transmission from mind to mind? It seems plausible
in the sense that the brain operates on electrical signals, but there
is no transmitter or receiver in the brain. At some physical level,
the brain would have to transmit or receive psychic thoughts in the
same manner as the other senses, but it does not. First, the brain
does not utilize nearly enough “power” to perform a transmission of
any kind. Radio-like transmissions follow field equations and that
means their strength declines proportional to an inverse square. This
means if you are face to face with someone, say one foot away, we
might assume the “power rating” is 100. If we were two feet away,
however, wouldn’t be half as much (fifty), it would be twenty-five. If
we were three feet away, it would be eleven - just over 10% of the
power rating at the source.
Power at 1 unit Distance Inverse Square of Distance Power at
Destination
100 1 unit 1/1 = 1 100 (at one unit away)
100 2 units 1/(2*2) = 0.25 25 (at two units away)
100 3 units 1/9 11
100 4 units 1/12 8
100 5 units 1/25 4
The idea is simple. If you can't hear someone's thoughts when your
head is right up against theirs when the signal strength would be
highest, then you could not plausibly hear their thoughts from much
farther away. Being 5 feet from someone the signal strength would be
less than 4% of what it was were your heads touching. The next room
over? Across the world? Forget it.
So far all we have done is shown that the brain does not physically
transmit or receive any signal whatsoever on the physical plane.
There’s still one out for people who hold on to psychic phenomena; an
alternate dimension which does not obey the laws of physics. We have
not yet discussed a possible non-physical plane, such as for example a
plane where all is one and distance (and hence transmission power,
distance between sender and receiver, etc.) is not relevant to a
transmission being sent and received.
The only way for psychic thought transmittal to occur would be for the
brain to somehow connect to this plane to send and/or receive
information. If the brain did not connect to this plane, it could not
utilize it. That seems pretty obvious, assuming our brains can connect
to such a dimension breaks violates our former observation that there
are no other inputs to the brain. The only conclusion remaining is
that the brain itself cannot send or receive such thoughts simply
because there is no part of the brain which acts in such a manner.
There are two ways in which we know this to be true. First, in a
physical sense, we know there is no physical part of the brain where
such input may occur - there is no "psychic sense nerve" input to the
brain. We may not know a lot about the brain, but we do know in a
general sense what certain parts of the brain do. Nope, no psychic
input nerve fibers. Secondly, we may presume there exists such an
input. In doing so there is an implicit assumption that we have not
yet discovered whatever part of the brain is connecting to the psychic
plane. Yet such an assumption is ludicrous because if there was any
sense organ receiving information or transmitting it on any level, it
would show up in brain scans.
And that’s not the only thing which doesn’t make sense about such an
assumption. Assuming any such sense existed to any degree, it would
affect the process of natural selection due to it's ability to
increase an individual's odds of survival. Imagine being able to
detect if there was a thief around the corner spying on you; you could
read his thoughts and escape with your life (and your money). Such
information would never become a repressed, hidden part of the
subconcious but would be a vital integral sense, relevant to our
survival, like sight or taste.
We may test this with a simple thought experiment. Suppose there
existed a meaningful percentage of people who were able to derive
meaningful information psychically. (Of course, we are not interested
in meaningless information or guessing). So, we first suppose there is
meaningful information to be had. Secondly, we propose that there are
a meaningful number of people with this ability. In this case we
assume that is some number greater than zero.
Given the above one would think there would be a decent number of such
people in any population. Call them mystics, seers, witches,
spiritualists, holy men. As the information they receive is
meaningful, we may ascribe some quality of life to this information,
some increased chance of survival. For example, suppose that just one
of these people had the ability to know when someone was planning to
kill them or when someone was lying to them or so forth.
Such a person would become unnaturally wealthy and powerful and live
an unnaturally long life. Not an obscenely longer life, but even just
a little. Such a benefit would propagate due to natural selection.
Soon a the group of people with such powers would grow, and come to
dominate the entire population. Yet this has not occurred. The obvious
conclusion of all this is that there is no meaningful information
which may be had from psychic ability. If there was, then everyone
would be psychic. In short it does not even matter if psychic
phenomenon exist, because we know for a fact that there is no useful
information which can be obtained via psychic sense, even if one were
to exist which we have not yet discovered by scientific means."
from: Thoughtcode, Chapter 2.
-
Lee
Yeah, I'm awesome.
--DharmaTroll
the only thing asshole ever got was wiped clean
and asshole has no memory so it doesn't even
remember being wiped clean. got it asshole?
DharmaTroll
> mind/body connection and cynicism of 'some' research, not all. I rather
> enjoy your rants. We otherwise mild mannered people have to get it out
> sometimes.
Yes, you said yourself you weren't a believer of this, and I don't
know others on the list who are, but I love to rant. I'm more ranting
against the general anti-science folks like Keynes than against reiki
in particular. Astrology is the woo-woo that annoys me the most,
actually. And I like to point out how people tend to swallow anecdotes
which are worthless, but suspect repeatable double-blind test on
random samples as likely to be fraudulent, for most folks haven't a
clue how much subjective bias they have and how powerful confirmation
bias is subjectively (e.g., it accounts for 99% of astrology).
> Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
> I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
> went nuts.
>
> Kitty
Keynes can be insightful and funny, and he tells good Nasrudin
stories, but his insanity is where he denies, oh, that the stars exist
or that there was a Big Bang. Sanity, for me, is to be humble and
realize that from the overwhelming evidence we have, the universe was
around 3 times longer than the Earth was (13.7 vs. 4.5 billion years),
and we sentient critters just a fraction of the age of the Earth. But
Keynes claims that his "Mind" created the world. I suppose that could
mean he has a time machine. Or if "Mind" means the standard use of
"God", then you get a common creationist view (but I'm going to call
that insane and woo-woo as well, so that won't help). Either way, it
involves an insane backwards causality, and an arrogance to think that
our puny egos created the stars, or that they can't exist without us
experiencing them.
Other things I find insane:his claiming that a truck on the highway is
as real as a hallucination of a truck (the latter is harmless, whereas
the former will flatten him). And that he thinks that either he
creates the trees and stars or else they are all mere illusions or
hallucinations -- that I find insane. But I think Keynes is lying: I
think he believes that the car on the other side of the double-lines
is objectively real and independent of his mind, and that he will die
and perhaps kill others if he swerves into it. But to believe that and
actually bother to stay on his side of the road would contradict all
the Keynes believes. And thus I think that Keynes is a stooge, and
only pretends to be insane, and simply tries to argue for the most
absurd claim (such as flat-earthism, or that the speed of light isn't
constant, or that brains aren't conscious, etc.) that he can, so that
I'll have a good time debunking him. That's all.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> "Ron Fuller" <rful...@freeway.net> wrote in message
>
> >> And when woo-woo is billed as "alternative medicine", as a result,
> >> people don't get the help they need from real medicine and legitimate
> >> doctors. As I mentioned, I had a friend whose wife died because she
> >> went for "alternative medicine", and the alternative turned out to be
> >> death. The woo-woo-ists talked her out of chemotherapy, and after the
> >> "alternative medicine" sessions, she felt calm and confident and
> >> happy, and then she dropped dead.
>
> > and i've had plenty of friends that the doctors talked into
> > chemotherapy and after the sessions they were sick and unhappy
> > and then they dropped dead.
>
> and i've had plenty of friends who didn't
> even have cancer who became sick and
> unhappy and then they dropped dead.
Hah! Lee the Lunatic said something funny!
Of course my story is worthless as are all anecdotes, because they
suggest inferences that aren't supported.
However, if you look at cancer patients as a whole, and compare ones
who go through chemotherapy and those who don't and practice woo-woo
instead, then statistically modern medicine kicks ass and beats all
'alternatives' with an incredibly high success rate in comparison.
Look at a burst appendix and you get an even more dramatic
understanding of this. The teen daughter of a friend of mind is in the
hospital tonight with an inflamed appendix. The success rate of modern
medical practice is close to 100% for her. If she did reiki, or
homeopathy, or reflexology, or crystal energy healing, or any other
woo-woo crap, her chance of survival would be close to ZERO percent.
Where Chinese medicine is most valuable, btw, is in a wholistic sense,
as prevention, to go for proper diet and lifestyle and so forth.
However, woo-woo-ists try to take practices like Chinese medicine,
which have some validity on a global scope, and try to administer it
like Western medicine, telling you to take this herb for this
condition and tea of that root for that condition, and it's all
nonsense. If you want to actually understand Chinese medicine, and use
it globally as it's intended, then you can benefit from it. If you try
to use it to find magic bullet herbs, the way that Western medicine
successfully can distill magic bullet drugs that affect one problem
with minimal side effects, then you're off into woo-woo. That's the
basic story.
Now I wonder if Keynes the Kook had a teen daughter and her appendix
became inflamed. Would he (a) take her to a legitimate accredited
Western doctor and/or hospital; or (b) take her to some New-Age
witchdoctor or energy healer; or (c) tell her that Mind has created
the pain and the appendix, and that it is all an illusion and so she
isn't really ill? How about the rest of you superstitious nincompoops?
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On Dec 28, 10:46 am, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think you've run into anyone here who is trying to foster a belief
> > in Rieki - just pointing out different perceptions about the value of
> > mind/body connection and cynicism of 'some' research, not all. I rather
> > enjoy your rants. We otherwise mild mannered people have to get it out
> > sometimes.
>
> > Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
> > I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
> > went nuts.
>
> Keynes is a fool in that he turns discussions into arguments and
> believes anyone with information other than his own is arrogant and/or
> stupid.
>
> Anyways, i've been following this thread with some interest. I wanted
> to interject a classic passage from "Thoughtcode" before, but now
> seems as good a time as any:
Never heard of "Thoughtcode", Lollie-Pup, but I've heard most of those
arguments before, as they actually debunk astrology as well as psychic
powers. There are two main themes. One is the inverse squared law that
you quote. This also applies to planets. Astrology is popular because
the planets had weird, unexplained retrograde motion (which we now
know comes from the sun being at a relatively stationary focus and the
planets including ours having elliptical orbits about the sun). The
awe and wonder led to beliefs in astrology. But now knowing the
inverse square law, any 'true' astrology would be almost exclusively
about the positions of the sun and moon, which are the only bodies
that can affect, say, tides. But astrologists don't focus exclusively
on the sun and moon, as one would predict were they to any extent
'true'. If one then evokes a non-physical plane (like in your story
quoted below) so that the inverse square law doesn't apply and planets
can affect us equally as well from long distances, then we merely have
to point out the thousands of other huge planets we have discovered
around other stars (not to mention ones we can's see in our own
system, such as Uranus and Neptune). The effects of all those
thousands of planets, if distance weren't an issue, would drown out
the effects of Venus or Mars or Jupiter. So either way, astrology is
completely doomed and dead in the water, collapsing under self-
contradiction.
And as in your story, there is the chasm that's impossible to cross,
which is how anything non-physical (like a psychic signal) could ever
affect anything physical (like a brain), for if there was an effect,
the cause would be considered physical (like gravity). How a mind/body
duality could ever even get off the ground has been a problem that is
unresolvable ever since Descartes tried to claim that the 'soul'
interacted with the brain via the pineal gland, but how this could
happen, even in principle, neither Descartes nor any other non-
physicalist (mind/body dualist) has ever answered. Your story below
touches upon this with "the only conclusion remaining is that the
brain itself cannot send or receive such thoughts simply because there
is no part of the brain which acts in such a manner." That is, the
idea of a 'mind' separate from a brain instead of being the function
of the brain, is absurd. Naive nutters will point out the experiential
opacity, that we can't directly 'feel' our neurons thinking, but just
because we have to infer that our neurons are the cause of memory and
thought isn't really problematic, any more than how we have to make
inferences to conclude that other folks are sentient beings just like
us. We simply can't know with certainty, but only the nutters make
certainty a necessity, not sane folks.
--DharmaTroll
> 100 4 units 1/16 8
Love
<2fbbf96d-e3d5-420c...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
dharm...@my-deja.com says...
>
>On Dec 27, 3:20=A0am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
>> In article <af6f7b27-9c9c-4013-8eb0-1a6809e9d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
>> >placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
>> >'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when you
>> >check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
>>
>> to science" they say "alternative to medicine" and by that they
>> mean "alternative to established medical practices" and/or
>> "alternative to the medical establishment".
>
>Oh, I meant to write "alternative medicine" so stop whining.
No you didn't because that wouldn't have worked for your
point that "science" is equivalent to "what works" so
"by definition" an "alternative to science" must also be
an alternative to what works, which is the same as "that
which doesn't work".
Your point was merely grammatical, and only possible by
mischaracterising what people actually mean and say.
Not to mention reducing the definition of science to one
ridiculously small idea.
>Now you want to rebel against the high school principal or the IRS
>with your "alternative to the establishment" talk, as if it were about
>living in a hippie commune or something.
Someone help da troll because he's started foaming and
hallucinating!
> What "alternative" means is
>"alternative to having positive results from rigorous, unbiased
>testing". In other words, by definition, it's either untested or it's
>been tested and it doesn't work and is mere placebo.
Except that's not what "alternative" means; it's just what
you want it to mean for the sake of rhetorical impact.
>>=A0You've had to bend the meaning of what people
>> actually say to make your little and
>> purely grammatical "by definition" point.
>
>No I didn't bend anything: I'm gonna bend you, though. Heh. I made a
>typo typing.
Nope, didn't, because if were a typo the rest of your
grammarian snit wouldn't have held together at all.
Face it, you're caught, nabbed, bagged, and exposed as a
sophist and fraud.
Now, tell me all about how you're going to bend me, and
don't leave out any details.
> In any case, that point is still that pseudo-science is
>bullshit, no matter what you pretend to call it. Just don't call it an
>alternative to medicine, because it isn't, unless you consider death
>an alternative.
So now medicine prevents death?
WOO WOO WOO WOO....
zenworm
Now I wonder if Keynes the Kook had a teen daughter and her appendix
became inflamed. Would he (a) take her to a legitimate accredited
Western doctor and/or hospital; or (b) take her to some New-Age
witchdoctor or energy healer; or (c) tell her that Mind has created
the pain and the appendix, and that it is all an illusion and so she
isn't really ill? How about the rest of you*?
* <gratuitous insult snipped>
If you are rowing a boat in a dream
and the boat springs an 'acute leak'
and there is a cork just the right size
and shape to plug the hole...
Go ahead and use the cork to plug
the hole, and keep on rowing.
None of this makes the island you
are rowing for any more or less 'real'.
-Nemo Toda
DharmaTroll
> On Dec 28, 1:35 am, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Now I wonder if Keynes the Kook had a teen daughter and her appendix
> became inflamed. Would he (a) take her to a legitimate accredited
> Western doctor and/or hospital; or (b) take her to some New-Age
> witchdoctor or energy healer; or (c) tell her that Mind has created
> the pain and the appendix, and that it is all an illusion and so she
> isn't really ill? How about the rest of you*?
>
> * <gratuitous insult snipped>
superstitious nincompoops!!!
> If you are rowing a boat in a dream
> and the boat springs an 'acute leak'
> and there is a cork just the right size
> and shape to plug the hole...
> Go ahead and use the cork to plug
> the hole, and keep on rowing.
> None of this makes the island you
> are rowing for any more or less 'real'.
> -Nemo Toda
Poetic sounding, but consistency suggests that it is 'real', IOW, it's
not dependent on some higher level, the way all the characters in your
dream are dependent on your brain in the real world for their
existence.
Now, in your quote, the suggestion is to "act exactly if things were
real". So this suggests to me a kind of fake detachment (that might
not be so bad, if it's an exercise that could train one to be detached
in a therapeutic kind of way): so you pretend that everything is a
dream, and then from that pretense, pretend that you are acting as if
it were real. That way you can remain insulated, distanced, like Tang
babbling about being "in closed loop". I think that's why this kind of
nonsense is appealing.
But if you take it seriously, and not as an exercise, then there is no
reason to plug the hole. On many occasions in a lucid dream, because I
(correctly) believed the situation to be a dream state, I jumped from
high places, and usually then could fly. So if I actually believed
that this were a lucid dream as well, I very easily could jump off a
bridge and I'd be dead. For real, dude. So again, if Keynes would tell
his daughter that her appendicitis is just an 'illusion' created by
'Mind' instead of taking her to a hospital to get surgery from a real
medical doctor, then he would be really insane, and would deserve to
be shot.
--DharmaTroll
Lee
On Dec 28, 12:53 am, "Lee" <original...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Ron Fuller" <rful...@freeway.net> wrote in message
>
> >> And when woo-woo is billed as "alternative medicine", as a result,
> >> people don't get the help they need from real medicine and legitimate
> >> doctors. As I mentioned, I had a friend whose wife died because she
> >> went for "alternative medicine", and the alternative turned out to be
> >> death. The woo-woo-ists talked her out of chemotherapy, and after the
> >> "alternative medicine" sessions, she felt calm and confident and
> >> happy, and then she dropped dead.
>
> > and i've had plenty of friends that the doctors talked into
> > chemotherapy and after the sessions they were sick and unhappy
> > and then they dropped dead.
>
> and i've had plenty of friends who didn't
> even have cancer who became sick and
> unhappy and then they dropped dead.
>Hah! Lee the Lunatic said something funny!
i'm funny like that
>Of course my story is worthless as are all anecdotes, because they
>suggest inferences that aren't supported.
or crutched
>However, if you look at cancer patients as a whole, and compare ones
>who go through chemotherapy and those who don't and practice woo-woo
>instead, then statistically modern medicine kicks ass and beats all
>'alternatives' with an incredibly high success rate in comparison.
if your concern is your flimsy,
lackluster and albatrossing security
safety and survival addictions,
then sure.
>Look at a burst appendix and you get an even more dramatic
>understanding of this. The teen daughter of a friend of mind is in the
>hospital tonight with an inflamed appendix. The success rate of modern
>medical practice is close to 100% for her. If she did reiki, or
>homeopathy, or reflexology, or crystal energy healing, or any other
>woo-woo crap, her chance of survival would be close to ZERO percent.
close but no cigar. her chances of
survival regardless of health or
sickness are zero anyway. same
as yours, mine and everyone else's.
>Where Chinese medicine is most valuable, btw, is in a wholistic sense,
>as prevention, to go for proper diet and lifestyle and so forth.
for what purpose beyond your need
for safety security and survival?
>However, woo-woo-ists try to take practices like Chinese medicine,
>which have some validity on a global scope, and try to administer it
>like Western medicine, telling you to take this herb for this
>condition and tea of that root for that condition, and it's all
>nonsense.
over generalized un-proven absolute.
> If you want to actually understand Chinese medicine, and use
>it globally as it's intended, then you can benefit from it. If you try
>to use it to find magic bullet herbs, the way that Western medicine
>successfully can distill magic bullet drugs that affect one problem
>with minimal side effects, then you're off into woo-woo. That's the
>basic story.
so the 100 or so drugs on the market whose basic
ingredient is opium have never been anything for
absolutely everyone besides being a magic bullet?
another of your over generalized absolutes and
they are just not backed up by anything as you
already stated yourself in this post; "they suggest
[inferences] which are not supported".
>Now I wonder if Keynes the Kook had a teen daughter and her appendix
>became inflamed. Would he (a) take her to a legitimate accredited
>Western doctor and/or hospital; or (b) take her to some New-Age
>witchdoctor or energy healer; or (c) tell her that Mind has created
>the pain and the appendix, and that it is all an illusion and so she
>isn't really ill? How about the rest of you superstitious nincompoops?
i can't really help but wonder why what keynes
and his daughter might do would be any of your
business.
Lee
>Poetic sounding, but consistency suggests that it is 'real',
like when they say "made from natural ingredients" ?
what isn't made from nature? even your dreams are
"natural" which suggests real-ibility in some sense.
> IOW, it's
>not dependent on some higher level, the way all the characters in your
>dream are dependent on your brain in the real world for their
>existence.
you imply that infinite regressive causality
leaves things out? insane.
>Now, in your quote, the suggestion is to "act exactly if things were
>real". So this suggests to me a kind of fake detachment (that might
>not be so bad, if it's an exercise that could train one to be detached
>in a therapeutic kind of way):
like how some are in that weasely
bait and swich denial mode a lot
of the time?
>so you pretend that everything is a
>dream, and then from that pretense, pretend that you are acting as if
>it were real.
what difference does it make whether
or not anything is real except to phony
safety security and survival addictions?
>That way you can remain insulated, distanced, like Tang
>babbling about being "in closed loop". I think that's why this kind of
>nonsense is appealing.
to each his own appealing nonsense.
[case in point]
>But if you take it seriously,
and why would you need to take anything seriously?
[please answer with those safety addictions
tied behuind your back]
> and not as an exercise, then there is no
>reason to plug the hole.
reasoning addiction duly noted.
[the forebearer to safety addictions]
> On many occasions in a lucid dream, because I
>(correctly) believed the situation to be a dream state, I jumped from
>high places, and usually then could fly. So if I actually believed
>that this were a lucid dream as well, I very easily could jump off a
>bridge and I'd be dead. For real, dude. So again, if Keynes would tell
>his daughter that her appendicitis is just an 'illusion' created by
>'Mind' instead of taking her to a hospital to get surgery from a real
>medical doctor, then he would be really insane, and would deserve to
>be shot.
you certainly appear to like sticking your
nose in other people's business and people
who aren't even contributing to this thread.
all that insulting of keynes is no more than
a weak stab at tribal herding strategy trumpet
calls. makes me wonder how much you like
a nose up your ass.
DharmaTroll
> In article
> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
> >On Dec 27, 3:20=A0am, pho...@address.for.spam (Love) wrote:
> >> In article <af6f7b27-9c9c-4013-8eb0-1a6809e9d...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> dharmatr...@my-deja.com says...
>
> >> >Well, here's the problem. Suppose that something works better than
> >> >placebo. Then it gets studied and it's called 'science'. To be an
> >> >'alternative to science' by definition means it doesn't work when you
> >> >check it out, that it's only based on biased cherry picking.
>
> >> Frakking bullshit Dharmatroll. =A0People don't say "alternative
> >> to science" they say "alternative to medicine" and by that they
> >> mean "alternative to established medical practices" and/or
> >> "alternative to the medical establishment".
>
> >Oh, I meant to write "alternative medicine" so stop whining.
>
> No you didn't because that wouldn't have worked for your
> point that "science" is equivalent to "what works" so
> "by definition" an "alternative to science" must also be
> an alternative to what works, which is the same as "that
> which doesn't work".
Right, because woo-woo doesn't work. You can add the clause "better
than placebo", as that's what it means to actually work. That is, if
it can be demonstrated to work, then it becomes a part of science. It
might not be put into practice right away because it needs further
practice, but it's still science.
If it doesn't work, but people believe it works and tell stories about
how it works, but when examined, it's demonstrated to not be any more
effective than placebo, then it's woo-woo, or mere belief.
> Your point was merely grammatical, and only possible by
> mischaracterising what people actually mean and say.
No, but anything that works will necessarily become part of science.
What people mean and say is that they believe in magical forces and
babble about "healing energies" or "chi" and that such words
grammatically don't refer, any more than do "unicorn" or "angel", and
that they are a sham. That's precisely why they are labeled as
"alternative". Put it this way, as science consists of what is true
about the world, to be an alternative to science while making a truth
claim is to be false. If something is true, then it's going to be
added to science.
> Not to mention reducing the definition of science to one
> ridiculously small idea.
No, science has to do with the understanding of everything that is,
and to correctly understanding it. And there are lots of true theories
about lots of things. So science is almost limitless.
> >Now you want to rebel against the high school principal or the IRS
> >with your "alternative to the establishment" talk, as if it were about
> >living in a hippie commune or something.
>
> Someone help da troll because he's started foaming and
> hallucinating!
Nope, you're lookin' in the mirror again.
> > What "alternative" means is
> >"alternative to having positive results from rigorous, unbiased
> >testing". In other words, by definition, it's either untested or it's
> >been tested and it doesn't work and is mere placebo.
>
> Except that's not what "alternative" means; it's just what
> you want it to mean for the sake of rhetorical impact.
No, I didn't. Everything that is labeled as "alternative medicine" is
bullshit. "Alternative medicine" is what's called a euphemism. It's a
nice sugar-coated term for woo-woo. It means "the set of practices
that are supported by belief and not by evidence." Were they actually
supported by evidence, and not anecdotes and fallacies, they wouldn't
be alternative! Now just as art isn't an alternative to truth (whereas
anything that is the alternative to the truth is a lie), just so the
term "complementary" is ok, as it's about making someone comfortable
and confident, etc., rather than claiming to be an alternative to
actual medical treatment.
> >>=A0You've had to bend the meaning of what people
> >> actually say to make your little and
> >> purely grammatical "by definition" point.
>
> >No I didn't bend anything: I'm gonna bend you, though. Heh. I made a
> >typo typing.
>
> Nope, didn't, because if were a typo the rest of your
> grammarian snit wouldn't have held together at all.
No, dum-dum, I left out a word in my post. What a baby: if I misspell
or leave out a word, are you going to then pretend I meant the wrong
word and argue against it for ten posts? That's almost as pathetic as
Tang's tricks.
> Face it, you're caught, nabbed, bagged, and exposed as a
> sophist and fraud.
No, just as someone who doesn't proofread his posts or spellcheck
them. Face it, I'm honest, rigorous, rational, and usually right, and
you're so pathetic that you have to attack my misspellings or
grammatical mistakes, because I mop the floor with you.
> Now, tell me all about how you're going to bend me, and
> don't leave out any details.
What a perv. Go buy yourself a vibrator!
> > In any case, that point is still that pseudo-science is
> >bullshit, no matter what you pretend to call it. Just don't call it an
> >alternative to medicine, because it isn't, unless you consider death
> >an alternative.
>
> So now medicine prevents death?
>
> WOO WOO WOO WOO....
>
> --
> Love
>
> May Shai-Hulud clear the path before you.
Depends what cause of death. In terms of vaccines, yes, medicine has
prevented millions of deaths. In terms of appendicitis, yes, modern
medicine has prevented millions of deaths, including my friend's
daughter's death tonight.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
"So again, if {any person} would tell {their} daughter
that her appendicitis is just an 'illusion' created
by 'Mind' instead of taking her to a hospital to get
surgery from a real medical doctor, then {they} would
be really insane, and would deserve to be shot."
--DharmaTroll {harpoon removed}
Positing that people with mental illnesses that
cause them to make righteous judgements
deserve to be put to death; seems like an inability
to accept the reality of mental illness as an illness.
In this way the righteous judgementality of
projecting harmful intent into deluded actions to
justify capital punishment
seems to have you at risk of being shot by your
own delusional absolutist projection of (unjustifiable)
retribution upon the mentally ill.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot everyone who
gets sick, mentally or otherwise?
"Another appendicitis. Damn we're out of bullets!
Who decided that two cases of bullets a week
would be enough?
Send him to get more, and get him to get an extra
case and label it 'incompetence' we don't want this
happening again."
- Dr. Death at the 'illness processing center*'
*(formerly hospitals)
Everybody dies?
oh wait a minute... that is 'reality'.
Perhaps if you take the gun out of your mouth
the compassion in your discussion will appear
less hypocritical?
What were you saying about the appearance
of consistency?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvd3kaupZ60
ZN ;D
jubilation for no reason owned by no one
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 27, 9:46 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
>> I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
>> went nuts.
>>
>> Kitty
>
>Keynes can be insightful and funny, and he tells good Nasrudin
>stories, but his insanity is where he denies, oh, that the stars exist
>or that there was a Big Bang.
Beginning or no beginning?
Neither option is comprehensible.
We can say there was a big bang beginning
of time and space, but we can't understand it.
Without space, where could it happen?
Without time, when could it happen?
Without a cause, how could it happen?
If you can answer these questions I'll grant you
some understanding. But if you admit that you
can't answer these questions, and that your pretensions
to knowledge (let alone 'wisdom') are vainglorious bullshit,
I'll give you more credit.
>Sanity, for me, is to be humble and
"Sanity is to be humble?" HA!
>realize that from the overwhelming evidence we have, the universe was
>around 3 times longer than the Earth was (13.7 vs. 4.5 billion years),
>and we sentient critters just a fraction of the age of the Earth. But
This all depends on what time is, and how we perceive it.
There is abstract theoretical time, and then that which we
actually 'experience' (whatever experience may mean).
They are by no means the same thing.
What do you think meditation or mindfulness is all about?
Is it about schedules or looking at your watch? Is it about
keeping a diary? Is it about keeping (and settling) scores?
Maybe you ought to look into buddhism. They say it's
good for what ails you.
>Keynes claims that his "Mind" created the world. I suppose that could
>mean he has a time machine. Or if "Mind" means the standard use of
>"God", then you get a common creationist view (but I'm going to call
>that insane and woo-woo as well, so that won't help). Either way, it
>involves an insane backwards causality, and an arrogance to think that
>our puny egos created the stars, or that they can't exist without us
>experiencing them.
Reality was earth centered by Aristotle. Before Hubble there
were no other galaxies but the milky way. You would have argued
for all that if you were there in those days. Now we have better
instruments and more and more theories, but our directly sensual
world has not changed. And for better or worse, we can not live
in a theoretical abstract framework (unless we're insane), but
must live directly depending on our natural senses.
There are no colors or sights per se, except as our senses
report them. (We don't see infrared, xrays, or radio.) What
makes a rainbow? It takes the sun, water droplets high in
the air, AND an observer, all three at a particular angular
relationship. What makes a sound? It takes vibrations in
air (or other medium) and ears to hear the sound.
What makes language? It takes sounds (or symbols) of
particular types, ears to hear them, (or eyes to see them),
and a mind to decode audible symbols into words, and the
words into meaning. And in the case of me and you, it takes
the ability to control one's rage, and to read what's written
without completely losing one's mind. You tend to go blind
and deaf quite readily. But that doesn't keep you from
raising your voice and spewing freudian slippage.
>Other things I find insane:his claiming that a truck on the highway is
>as real as a hallucination of a truck (the latter is harmless, whereas
>the former will flatten him).
You believe you can actually look forward and backward
in time simultaneously, and still even be aware of the present?
(Apparently you've never said to yourself, "It seemed like
a good idea at the time.")
>And that he thinks that either he
>creates the trees and stars or else they are all mere illusions or
>hallucinations -- that I find insane.
What a coincidence.
>But I think Keynes is lying: I
>think he believes that the car on the other side of the double-lines
>is objectively real and independent of his mind, and that he will die
>and perhaps kill others if he swerves into it. But to believe that and
>actually bother to stay on his side of the road would contradict all
>the Keynes believes.
I believe that beliefs are mistakes.
Do not believe everything that you think.
>And thus I think that Keynes is a stooge, and
>only pretends to be insane, and simply tries to argue for the most
>absurd claim (such as flat-earthism, or that the speed of light isn't
>constant, or that brains aren't conscious, etc.) that he can, so that
>I'll have a good time debunking him. That's all.
You have a talent for stating the obvious. That's a good thing
because nobody has had any experience with the obvious themselves
and they surely need you to tell them all about it in excruciating detail.
Thank you for your kindly support and guidance.
Keynes
Dang this modren sossiaty and it's dad blame fads
like dropping dead. What will they think of next?
Charles E Hardwidge
> Never heard of "Thoughtcode", Lollie-Pup, but I've heard most of those
> arguments before, as they actually debunk astrology as well as psychic
> powers.
You're incredibly difficult to quote succinctly as you suffer from Grade 'A'
verbal diarrhoea.
I agree, there's no convincing evidence that either astrology or the psychic
fulfil their primary stated goals. Then again, it can be said that
consultant's reports and the internet fall short as well. People can get
over excited and misinterpret things but I'm generally comfortable with this
as a form of entertainment or a proxy for ambitions as long as it doesn't
get the whip hand. The same can be said of science and marketing.
Personally, I'm more focused on voodoo economics, celebrities, and
politicians who tell lies just to get elected. In particular, I'm concerned
about the likes of David Cameron who are benefiting from a seditious
astroturfing campaign, media and poll manipulation, and who threaten to
usher in a decade of Turbo-Thatcherism. That does worry me as I still
haven't got over the last time those wankers were in power.
I've commented before on issues like management competence and the politics
of sloganised emotions but the steel jawed heroes of British business and
headline chasing media are slow to admit to this. They would rather keep
peddling the same bullshit to stay in power or keep up their circulation
figures than admit they got it wrong even when the theory, studies, and
anecdotal examples provide an embarrassment of evidence.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Appledog
>
> Without space, where could it happen?
> Without time, when could it happen?
> Without a cause, how could it happen?
>
> If you can answer these questions I'll grant you
> some understanding. But if you admit that you
> can't answer these questions, and that your pretensions
> to knowledge (let alone 'wisdom') are vainglorious bullshit,
> I'll give you more credit.
AXE + CHICKEN HEAD = DINNER
You're babbling child's play, keynes. This is pre-basics.
-
DharmaTroll
Except I just said it about the Nutter Keynes.
So that I could evoke a reply from him.
> In this way the righteous judgementality of
> projecting harmful intent into deluded actions to
> justify capital punishment
> seems to have you at risk of being shot by your
> own delusional absolutist projection of (unjustifiable)
> retribution upon the mentally ill.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot everyone who
> gets sick, mentally or otherwise?
Nah, I just wanna send Keynes to the funny farm.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:18:51 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 27, 9:46 pm, "Kitty P" <paino2...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Another interesting perceptual difference between you and I though, is that
> >> I usually find Keynes very insightful. I must have missed the post where he
> >> went nuts.
>
> >> Kitty
>
> >Keynes can be insightful and funny, and he tells good Nasrudin
> >stories, but his insanity is where he denies, oh, that the stars exist
> >or that there was a Big Bang.
>
> Beginning or no beginning?
> Neither option is comprehensible.
> We can say there was a big bang beginning
> of time and space, but we can't understand it.
Blah. We can always strive to understand a little more. Always
existing seems to be a bit more coherent and understandable than a one-
time POOF ex nihilo. Looking for evidence that our 'bubble' of the
universe happens in many ways again and again makes sense, and then we
can look to speculate how the initial conditions happened for our
bubble, and how they could be different, or if maybe every variety of
bubble is created but only the ones with consistent laws remain
stable, etc., etc.
<snipping mass amounts of Keynes' bullshit>
> >realize that from the overwhelming evidence we have, the universe was
> >around 3 times longer than the Earth was (13.7 vs. 4.5 billion years),
> >and we sentient critters just a fraction of the age of the Earth. But
>
> This all depends on what time is, and how we perceive it.
No, It doesn't depend on how we perceive it. The point is how it
happened before we perceived it and not having to do with us or our
egos or our choices. The evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion
years old. Period.
> There is abstract theoretical time,
No, it's real time. It's not just theoretical. We have very strong
evidence from multiple sources that the universe is 13.7 billion years
old. Now you and the other Creationists can whine all you want, but
the strong evidence is there.
> >Keynes claims that his "Mind" created the world. I suppose that could
> >mean he has a time machine. Or if "Mind" means the standard use of
> >"God", then you get a common creationist view (but I'm going to call
> >that insane and woo-woo as well, so that won't help). Either way, it
> >involves an insane backwards causality, and an arrogance to think that
> >our puny egos created the stars, or that they can't exist without us
> >experiencing them.
>
> Reality was earth centered by Aristotle.
> Before Hubble there were no other galaxies but the milky way.
No, there were lots of other galaxies. We were simply ignorant of
them. Your claim that Hubble created galaxies is absurd. He merely
discovered them. Because you're a frakking lunatic, you don't discern
the difference. Andromeda was still there when Aristotle didn't know
about it or see it.
> There are no colors or sights per se, except as our senses
> report them. (We don't see infrared, xrays, or radio.)
But the radiation is there, whether we see it or not.
It's the old "if I close my eyes, you don't exist" game.
Stand in front of the oncoming truck and close your eyes.
See what happens, Nutter Dude.
<snip more bullshit>
> >And thus I think that Keynes is a stooge, and
> >only pretends to be insane, and simply tries to argue for the most
> >absurd claim (such as flat-earthism, or that the speed of light isn't
> >constant, or that brains aren't conscious, etc.) that he can, so that
> >I'll have a good time debunking him. That's all.
>
> You have a talent for stating the obvious.
You have a talent for denying the obvious.
Your stooge check is in the mail.
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
Would that you had something to say.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>Nah, I just wanna send Keynes to the funny farm.
>--DharmaTroll
>
I'm already there.
And they won't let you in because you're not funny.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0551dcd5-049e-42bc...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Never heard of "Thoughtcode", Lollie-Pup, but I've heard most of those
> > arguments before, as they actually debunk astrology as well as psychic
> > powers.
>
> You're incredibly difficult to quote succinctly as you suffer from Grade 'A'
> verbal diarrhoea.
I thought that I pretty much summed up the whole argument in a
paragraph or two, but I can do better. The cause of the emotional hype
of astrology is awe from observing the uncanny retrograde motion of
the planets, but given what we know now about effects from a distance,
all of astrology should have been focusing on the moon and sun but
isn't, and finally, if an exception is made to the inverse squared
distance rule, that all the other exo-planets discovered would drown
out any effect of the visible ones like Mars, so that astrology leads
to utter contradiction in every scenario. There, I put it in one
sentence for you.
> I agree, there's no convincing evidence that either astrology or the psychic
> fulfil their primary stated goals. Then again, it can be said that
> consultant's reports and the internet fall short as well. People can get
> over excited and misinterpret things but I'm generally comfortable with this
> as a form of entertainment or a proxy for ambitions as long as it doesn't
> get the whip hand. The same can be said of science and marketing.
My point is that astrology promotes sloppy thinking and people swallow
all sorts of fallacies and remain oblivious to confirmation bias. Then
they apply that sloppy thinking to more important issues, perhaps some
of these you care about.
> Personally, I'm more focused on voodoo economics, celebrities, and
> politicians who tell lies just to get elected. In particular, I'm concerned
> about the likes of David Cameron who are benefiting from a seditious
> astroturfing campaign, media and poll manipulation, and who threaten to
> usher in a decade of Turbo-Thatcherism. That does worry me as I still
> haven't got over the last time those wankers were in power.
>
> I've commented before on issues like management competence and the politics
> of sloganised emotions but the steel jawed heroes of British business and
> headline chasing media are slow to admit to this. They would rather keep
> peddling the same bullshit to stay in power or keep up their circulation
> figures than admit they got it wrong even when the theory, studies, and
> anecdotal examples provide an embarrassment of evidence.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
I don't keep up with U.K. politics too much, and here in America it's
a mess with every member of the minority Republican party voting no in
a block just to try to make the President look bad, and folks on both
extremes getting the most attention as they caricaturize and insult
the other extreme. Lots of critical thinking is needed here.
--Dharmatroll
zenworm
>
> Nah, I just wanna send Keynes to the funny farm.
> --DharmaTroll
You mean this isn't it?!?!
Just when you think
that thinking thought is thought,
the thought you are thinking
thinks that thought is not.
- Ceribris Vermisander
Kitty P
--DharmaTroll
================================
An avocation of mine is the study native northwest indian ethnobotany. It's
the study (scientific btw) of the relationship between plants and culture.
The combination of uses for plants often had ceremonial as well as curative
effects by local native people. They of course died from infections without
penicillin or antibiotics - and were eventually wiped out by measles brought
here by traders and trappers. So they of course weren't anywhere close to
the advances in medicine we have seen in our lifetime. But something has
always struck me about how they combined the mind with body when trying to
effect a cure. For instance the Cowlitz would boil Douglas Fir needles for
colds, but also warm the cones by the fire to make it stop raining and
assist in their prayers for sunshine. Ok - so the first may have helped
physically, but the second didn't. It just made them feel better.
It is all well and good to make sure that science and the critical thinking
skills that can come from scientific inquiry thrive in our lives and
especially in education. But sometimes there is an age old and important
thing to remember - if something helps someone feel better and isn't harming
anyone - who cares if it isn't scientifically valid?
Kitty
Keynes
wrote:
>
><snipping mass amounts of DramaTroll's bullshit>
>
>No, It doesn't depend on how we perceive it. The point is how it
>happened before we perceived it and not having to do with us or our
>egos or our choices. The evidence is that the universe is 13.7 billion
>years old. Period.
What does this have to do with your bad attitude?
Does it make you less obnoxious and trivial?
Is it paying the rent? Is it making you any friends?
WTF do you think you're doing, Mr. Geniosity?
(Your fly is open.)
Next time you have a 'lucid dream' (sure, like a submarine blimp)
tell yourself to wake up. In fact, tell yourself to do that right now.
Oh wait! There is no such thing as waking up. It's woo woo poo.
That's what Buddha the Plumber told DramaTroll when his toilet
backed up into his head. "Now you take this here wrench, and you
give your nuts a good twist like this - oh, am I hurting you?"
>No, it's real time.
Time to get real? (We should be so lucky.)
>It's not just theoretical. We have very strong evidence from
>multiple sources that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Send me a box of "real time" and we can talk, you ignorant assburger.
Or a bottle of wind. That's almost as good. (And not the wind
that flies out of both your ends.)
>Now you and the other Creationists
What?
Are you and the rest of the mechanical robot army coming for me?
Oh save me, Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, and all the saints!
Why is it that you borg call humans 'creationists'?
Is it because you mental monsters were created?
In college? When you were very young?
When you taught religion to the nuns?
And nutrition to your mother's tits?
(Wait! I'm getting a message from God... What?..
Listen to DramaTroll? Fuck you, God. Fuck you!)
Charles E Hardwidge
> Now I wonder if Keynes the Kook had a teen daughter and her appendix
> became inflamed. Would he (a) take her to a legitimate accredited
> Western doctor and/or hospital; or (b) take her to some New-Age
> witchdoctor or energy healer; or (c) tell her that Mind has created
> the pain and the appendix, and that it is all an illusion and so she
> isn't really ill? How about the rest of you superstitious nincompoops?
This isn't reality it's just politics.
I've had a boring week beating up some deadweight ass-kissing timewaster in
the photography group and he still *doesn't* get it. After his last bullish
post slammed into a wall he's now trying to sound like he's taking on
lessons and not pissing on anyone by name but he hasn't actually *admitted*
he fucked up and is gossiping like a whiney bitch offline.
Is Keynes a dominating power that controls your outcomes? Nope.
Is Keynes opinion insanely sexy in the court of public opinion? Nope.
Where's the threat? Where's the opportunity?
FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:rcjhj5t3n4ipipodb...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:04:51 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll
> <dharm...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>Nah, I just wanna send Keynes to the funny farm.
>
>
> And they won't let you in because you're not funny.
This is clever but not very smart from a big picture point of view. This
sort of politics is boring at the best of times.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Keynes
<1,000 "no's" snipped from the One Who No's>
>
>An avocation of mine is the study native northwest indian ethnobotany. It's
>the study (scientific btw) of the relationship between plants and culture.
>The combination of uses for plants often had ceremonial as well as curative
>effects by local native people. They of course died from infections without
>penicillin or antibiotics - and were eventually wiped out by measles brought
>here by traders and trappers. So they of course weren't anywhere close to
>the advances in medicine we have seen in our lifetime. But something has
>always struck me about how they combined the mind with body when trying to
>effect a cure. For instance the Cowlitz would boil Douglas Fir needles for
>colds, but also warm the cones by the fire to make it stop raining and
>assist in their prayers for sunshine. Ok - so the first may have helped
>physically, but the second didn't. It just made them feel better.
>
>It is all well and good to make sure that science and the critical thinking
>skills that can come from scientific inquiry thrive in our lives and
>especially in education. But sometimes there is an age old and important
>thing to remember - if something helps someone feel better and isn't harming
>anyone - who cares if it isn't scientifically valid?
>
>Kitty
Who cares?
The Sandwich Inquisition of course.
Lee
what will they think of after dropping dead?
"everybody out of the gene pool" ?
zenworm
> ================================
>
> An avocation of mine is the study native northwest indian ethnobotany. It's
> the study (scientific btw) of the relationship between plants and culture.
> The combination of uses for plants often had ceremonial as well as curative
> effects by local native people. They of course died from infections without
> penicillin or antibiotics - and were eventually wiped out by measles brought
> here by traders and trappers. So they of course weren't anywhere close to
> the advances in medicine we have seen in our lifetime. But something has
> always struck me about how they combined the mind with body when trying to
> effect a cure. For instance the Cowlitz would boil Douglas Fir needles for
> colds, but also warm the cones by the fire to make it stop raining and
> assist in their prayers for sunshine. Ok - so the first may have helped
> physically, but the second didn't. It just made them feel better.
>
> It is all well and good to make sure that science and the critical thinking
> skills that can come from scientific inquiry thrive in our lives and
> especially in education. But sometimes there is an age old and important
> thing to remember - if something helps someone feel better and isn't harming
> anyone - who cares if it isn't scientifically valid?
>
> Kitty
There is an Inuit tradition passed down for generations
for finding caribou during the hunt:
The shaman takes a large antler and places it on the fire.
He then watches for the first crack to appear and notes
the direction and progression of the crack.
The spiritual theory is that the part of the spirit still
trapped in the antler breaks out and rushes towards
the nearest herd revealing the direction to the nearest
herd.
In order to test whether their is any merit to this method
the the scientists fed every available scrap of information
into a mainframe: weather patterns, migratory patterns,
and everything else they could come up with that might
effect an ability to predict a determination of which
direction would lead to a herd.
The computers extremely scientific advise for determining
the most appropriate direction with the highest probability
for finding the caribou...
"Choose a random direction and move."
Turns out the shaman's method is equivalent
to the scientific one.
The only significant variable that was found to affect
the probability is whether the seekers keep moving.
Having a cultural method to keep determining a
direction that everyone can buy into, to keep them
moving, is the perfect solution with the highest
probability for success.
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
DharmaTroll
Well, sure, in the "noble savage" context it sounds fine. Two problems
when you are in the modern world. First, there is money. As long as
it's free, no problem. But if people are making money selling woo-woo,
then folks are getting ripped off. It's false advertising and fraud.
Secondly, if people are taught to be superstitious and accept
anecdotal evidence as more than worthless, then they are likely to be
duped again in the future, and perhaps not in such an innocent way.
My favorite examples are the evangelical preachers on TV.
"Give me your money, and you can expect a harvest!"
See, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7e9vnwTjJA
--DharmaTroll
liaM
Randomness simply means the observer is too far away
to observe anything else. Heisenberg's principle dictates
that as one approaches the locus of application, the observer
becomes part of the process. The shaman is part of the equation.
This is why his method is best, having been proved over
many lifetimes.
A good example of the shakiness of scientific knowledge
in relation to bedrock tradition, is the quantities of outstanding
cheeses produced with raw milk in France which Americans
must forego because legislators chose to believe science
rather than experience. According to science, cheese produced
with unpasteurized milk is dangerous. According to
experience, this is bunk. Cheeses made with raw milk have
been around over 3000 years and were never even remotedly
thought of as unhealthy.
liaM
I hurt my knee.
My surgeon said we'll have to snip the cartilage. Blood circulation
would be needed for the cartilage to heal itself, but there
is none in the knee.
My acupuncturist replied "your surgeon is right, there is no
blood flow in the knee. But he ignores the fact there is circulation
of the Qi (chinese life force)"
I had accupuncture and Qi Gong laying of hands to trear my ailing knee.
The cure has held 20 years with none of the sequels that follow
surgical repair of cartilage in the long run.
DharmaTroll
Balderdash. That has nothing to do with Heisenberg's principle .You're
reading all sorts of woo-woo into it. And no, randomness is not a
mysterious woo-woo pattern that we simply don't see. That wouldn't be
random; that would be an undiscovered non-random pattern. However, the
secret of superstition (as well as paranoia) is to constantly believe
you see patterns where none exist, and to obsessively assume that some
pattern always exists, and is simply unseen.
In terms of selection, at the tribal scale, those tribes that included
"random number generators" such as the shaman's way of choosing a
direction, were the tribes that ended up surviving.
I do the same thing when I play poker to not display betting patterns
that opponents can pick up on. I can roll a die, or, better yet, I can
look at the second hand on a watch and when it is a certain position
play one way, and in a different position play another. It's called
number theory. No quantum physics involved. Nor any woo-woo. Just a
plain old random number generator.
--DharmaTroll
Lee
"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:4b38ec81$0$893$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
[from another group;]
Why A Lottery Jackpot is never predictable?
The answer is very simple..Three words.
G�del's incompleteness theorems
wiki First incompleteness theorem
G�del's first incompleteness theorem states that:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary
arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for
any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves
certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement
that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).
The true but unprovable statement referred to by the theorem is often
referred to as "the G�del sentence" for the theory. It is not unique;
there are infinitely many statements in the language of the theory
that share the property of being true but unprovable.[2]
For each consistent formal theory T having the required small amount
of number theory, the corresponding G�del sentence G asserts: "G
cannot be proved to be true within the theory T". If G were provable
under the axioms and rules of inference of T, then T would have a
theorem, G, which effectively contradicts itself, and thus the theory
T would be inconsistent. This means that if the theory T is consistent
then G cannot be proved within it. This means that G's claim about its
own unprovability is correct; in this sense G is not only unprovable
but true. Thus provability-within-the-theory-T is not the same as
truth; the theory T is incomplete.
If G is true: G cannot be proved within the theory, and the theory is
incomplete. If G is false: then G can be proved within the theory and
then the theory is inconsistent, since G is both provable and
refutable from T.
Each theory has its own G�del statement. It is possible to define a
larger theory T' that contains the whole of T, plus G as an additional
axiom. This will not result in a complete theory, because G�del's
theorem will also apply to T', and thus T' cannot be complete. In this
case, G is indeed a theorem in T', because it is an axiom. Since G
states only that it is not provable in T, no contradiction is
presented by its provability in T'. However, because the
incompleteness theorem applies to T': there will be a new G�del
statement G' for T', showing that T' is also incomplete. G' will
differ from G in that G' will refer to T', rather than T.
To prove the first incompleteness theorem, G�del represented
statements by numbers. Then the theory at hand, which is assumed to
prove certain facts about numbers, also proves facts about its own
statements. Questions about the provability of statements are
represented as questions about the properties of numbers, which would
be decidable by the theory if it were complete. In these terms, the
G�del sentence states that no natural number exists with a certain,
strange property. A number with this property would encode a proof of
the inconsistency of the theory. If there were such a number then the
theory would be inconsistent, contrary to the consistency hypothesis.
So, under the assumption that the theory is consistent, there is no
such number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
G�del's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic
that state inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic
systems for mathematics.
They state that any consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be
listed by a computer program is incapable of proving certain truths
about arithmetic. This means that any consistent computable formal
theory which can prove some arithmetic truths cannot prove all
arithmetic truths.
n mathematical logic, a theory is a set of sentences expressed in a
formal language. Some statements in a theory are included without
proof (these are the axioms of the theory), and others (the theorems)
are included because they are implied by the axioms.
Because statements of a formal theory are written in symbolic form, it
is possible to mechanically verify that a formal proof from a finite
set of axioms is valid. This task, known as automatic proof
verification, is closely related to automated theorem proving; the
difference is that instead of constructing a new proof, the proof
verifier simply checks that a provided formal proof (or, in some
cases, instructions that can be followed to create a formal proof) is
correct. This is not merely hypothetical; systems such as Isabelle are
used today to formalize proofs and then check their validity.
Many theories of interest include an infinite set of axioms, however.
To verify a formal proof when the set of axioms is infinite, it must
be possible to determine whether a statement that is claimed to be an
axiom is actually an axiom. This issue arises in first order theories
of arithmetic, such as Peano arithmetic, because the principle of
mathematical induction is expressed as an infinite set of axioms (an
axiom schema).
A formal theory is said to be effectively generated if its set of
axioms is a recursively enumerable set. This means that there is a
computer program that, in principle, could enumerate all the axioms of
the theory without listing any statements that are not axioms. This is
equivalent to the ability to enumerate all the theorems of the theory
without enumerating any statements that are not theorems. For example,
each of the theories of Peano arithmetic and Zermelo-Fraenkel set
theory has an infinite number of axioms and each is effectively
generated.
In choosing a set of axioms, one goal is to be able to prove as many
correct results as possible, without proving any incorrect results. A
set of axioms is complete if, for any statement in the axioms'
language, either that statement or its negation is provable from the
axioms. A set of axioms is (simply) consistent if there is no
statement so that both the statement and its negation are provable
from the axioms. In the standard system of first-order logic, an
inconsistent set of axioms will prove every statement in its language
(this is sometimes called the principle of explosion), and is thus
automatically complete. A set of axioms that is both complete and
consistent, however, proves a maximal set of non-contradictory
theorems. G�del's incompleteness theorems show that in certain cases
it is not possible to obtain an effectively generated, complete,
consistent theory.
Lee
with goedel's incompleteness and heisenberg's
uncertainty we now have solid ground to utterly
dismiss all woo woo once and for all.
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> I hurt my knee.
>
> My surgeon said we'll have to snip the cartilage. Blood circulation
> would be needed for the cartilage to heal itself, but there
> is none in the knee.
>
> My acupuncturist replied "your surgeon is right, there is no
> blood flow in the knee. But he ignores the fact there is circulation
> of the Qi (chinese life force)"
>
> I had accupuncture and Qi Gong laying of hands to trear my ailing knee.
> The cure has held 20 years with none of the sequels that follow
> surgical repair of cartilage in the long run.
Dr. Ma in San Jose, right?
Tang Huyen
liaM
>
> Balderdash.
Coming from you... :-)))) !
liaM
>
> with goedel's incompleteness and heisenberg's
> uncertainty we now have solid ground to utterly
> dismiss all woo woo once and for all.
I've thought exactly the same. What a wonderful philosopher he was.
Have you ever read the lectures in which Heisenberg describes his work ?
liaM
Yep. Your memory is astounding :) Or did you hear of him somewhere
else than in one of my posts !?
DharmaTroll
> The cure has held 20 years with none of the sequels that follow
> surgical repair of cartilage in the long run.
Yeah, and if you'd burnt incense or prayed on a rosary, I'd bet the
same thing would have happened. This is indeed one of the reasons woo-
woo gets popular, and is helpful. In some cases it's better to do
nothing. Surgery is often useless, so better to let yourself heal
naturally. In such cases, if you go for woo-woo, by doing nonsense
about magical flow of woo-woo 'chi', you avoid something that may have
been unnecessary. Of course, my reply is to get a second opinion (the
surgeon says, "ok, you're ugly, too"), and not rush into such things.
An interesting story I like to tell about this has to do with the most
credulous and ridiculous of all woo-woo miracle cures: homeopathy. The
nutter Samuel Christian Friedrich Hahnemann (1755-1843) introduced his
harmless woo-woo as an alternative to the standard medical practices
of the day, such as phlebotomy or bloodletting. Opening veins to bleed
patients, force disease out of the body, and restore the humors to a
proper balance was a popular yet insane and often fatal medical
practice until the late 19th century. Hahnemann rejected the notion
that disease should be treated by letting out the offensive woo-woo
causing the illness. In this, he was absolutely right! On the other
hand, he argued that disease should be treated by helping the magical
"vital force" restore the body to harmony and balance. In this, he was
wrong. He rejected other common medical practices of his day such as
purgatives and emetics "with opium and mercury-based calomel". Again,
he was right to reject those nonsensical popular fads. Hahnemann's
'alternative medicine' was hence more humane and less likely to cause
harm than many of the conventional practices of his day, simply
because his harmless woo-woo did nothing, instead of performing
dangerous and poisonous 'treatments' which were harmful, and often
fatal.
My solution is to be a critical thinker and not jump into surgery when
it may not be needed, or take prescriptions which may not be needed.
However, just because woo-woo often helps us to avoid unnecessary
surgery or drugs doesn't mean that we couldn't figure that out
rationally, without the superstition. Also, in cases where we do need
the surgery or drugs, the woo-woo beliefs won't get in the way of our
being healed most effectively.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
'Woo' or 'culturally derived / magical
methodologies' need to be carefully investigated
because even if the method is 'woo' the method has
sometimes evolved through generations of natural
selection to the exact appropriate behavior for the
highest success probability even though the
methodology itself is scientifically nonsensical.
Your homeopathy example is another good example,
especially since we can see the evolution there
from a 'lethal' form of woo to a 'benign' form.
To throw away a longstanding cultural behavior
just because the methodology seems to fly in the
face of science can be unwise.
liaM
woo rules !
Lee
i'm waiting for the movie
Lee
>In such cases, if you go for woo-woo, by doing nonsense
>about magical flow of woo-woo 'chi',
qi just means the lifeforce. can you deny that
you exist? that's all it is. a feeling that you exist.
qigong is a practice by which the flow of that
energy isn't impeded by any of the propensities
of the form. when there are no impediments to
the lifeforce flow then a more conducive vehicle
towards a healthy application of energy to form
can ensue, or, then again, maybe not.
zenworm
The concerns of botchulism, listeria, and salmonella
three common bacteria that are both fatal and easily
kill-able by pasteurization, have arisen out of the mass
production manufacturing processes that utilize large
complex machinery that is difficult to properly clean.
In order to protect the public from becoming victims
of the bottom line (profitability)(since the machinery
often takes days or sometimes weeks to properly
disassemble clean thoroughly and reassemble)
legislating against 'raw' product marketing and
mandating pasteurization as the last part of the
manufacturing process seemed a sensible preventative.
Recent nutritional discoveries into the important value
of enzymes, vitamins, and phytonutrients, as an essential
part of the 'living' bio-structure of foods and the fact that
these are also destroyed by pasteurization are good
reasons to rethink some of these laws.
The old methodologies of the hand manufacturing
processes often have no issues with these fatal
bacteria because the hand cleaning process has
evolved as a matter of pride and quality to high
standards of cleanliness and inspection throughout
the process to ensure the highest consistency
of flavour and quality.
gbb
> woo rules !
Or as E. Fudd would say:
woo wools !
--
gbb
zenworm
>
> >> with goedel's incompleteness and heisenberg's
> >> uncertainty we now have solid ground to utterly
> >> dismiss all woo woo once and for all.
>
> > I've thought exactly the same. What a wonderful philosopher he was. Have
> > you ever read the lectures in which Heisenberg describes his work ?
>
> woo rules !
Do you have a link to these lectures liaM?
(Heisenberg)
anybody?
Lee
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:871f5e57-4c22-4adc...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
===================================
washing your hands is all good and well
but there are still tanker truck drivers who
after dropping off their load of fuel oil go
tank up with orange juice without first
cleaning out their tanks. bon apetit !
Lee
Yo asshole, I don't care if you throw personal attacks at me. My beef
is if you use it as an argument. Note, I point out that you're an
asshole. But I don't say "since you're an asshole, your argument must
be false." That's what I object to. That's a logical fallacy called
argumentum ad hominem. It's an invalid form of reasoning. If you're
wrong, I try to provide reasons and evidence why you're wrong. But I
don't every say that you're wrong solely on the grounds that you're an
asshole. Got it asshole?
--DharmaTroll
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
ad hominem is simply a weak and lackluster
egoic divide and conquer avoidance/denial
tactic in an attempt to dissuade the shadow
dog light of evidence that if you're an asshole
you pretty much say think and do asshole things
and if you do say and think asshole things then
guess what? you're pretty much an asshole.
duh.
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:17e56d2b-e349-4eb9...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >In such cases, if you go for woo-woo, by doing nonsense
> >about magical flow of woo-woo 'chi',
>
> qi just means the lifeforce. can you deny that
> you exist? that's all it is. a feeling that you exist.
No, it's more than just emotions. It's a magical woo-woo claim.
> qigong is a practice by which the
> flow of that energy
BOOM! No flow, no energy. That's simply idiocy, to take physics terms
and use them to babble superstitions. If it were just a feeling then
you'd say "there's no flow, no energy, just a feeling or a thought".
But like the superstitious asshole you are, it's babble about 'flow of
that energy' in the next sentence.
> the lifeforce flow
"Lifeforce" my ass. What a moron! Being a vitalist and babbling about
'lifeforce' in the 21st century isn't just superstitious, it's
pathetic.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
I think throwing away slavery was quite wise, in fact. And throwing
away nonsense babble about vital forces (now called 'energies' or
'chi' by idiots) is also a good idea, as well as fear of the number
13, fear of homosexuality, belief in ghosts and spirit possessions,
and a whole lot of other useless shit.
--DharmaTroll
Lee
> qi just means the lifeforce. can you deny that
> you exist? that's all it is. a feeling that you exist.
>No, it's more than just emotions. It's a magical woo-woo claim.
just because you name it something
different doesn't back your claim
that you deny that you exist.
> qigong is a practice by which the
> flow of that energy
>BOOM! No flow, no energy.
evidence please.
> That's simply idiocy, to take physics terms
>and use them to babble superstitions.
evidence please.
> If it were just a feeling then
>you'd say "there's no flow, no energy, just a feeling or a thought".
you're now denying that you're feelings
and thoughts flow? how does a feeling
of your upset stomach end up in your mind
if not by a flow? does an osmosis from the
stomach magically transmit itself to your
brain? great woo woo do0d.
>But like the superstitious asshole you are, it's babble about 'flow of
>that energy' in the next sentence.
so according to you all energy just
magically bilocates itself from place to
place? you are the woo woo king !!!
> the lifeforce flow
>"Lifeforce" my ass. What a moron! Being a vitalist and babbling about
>'lifeforce' in the 21st century isn't just superstitious, it's
>pathetic.
and your evidence that there is
no lifeforce flow comes from what source
please?
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51270ec7-2b03-4feb...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > qi just means the lifeforce. can you deny that
> > you exist? that's all it is. a feeling that you exist.
> >No, it's more than just emotions. It's a magical woo-woo claim.
>
> just because you name it something
> different doesn't back your claim
> that you deny that you exist.
No, I don't name 'lifeforce' as 'soul' or 'Mind' or 'ego' or 'vital
force' because none of that bullshit exists.
> > the lifeforce flow
> >"Lifeforce" my ass. What a moron! Being a vitalist and babbling about
> >'lifeforce' in the 21st century isn't just superstitious, it's
> >pathetic.
>
> and your evidence that there is
> no lifeforce flow comes from what source
> please?
It's the same evidence I have that there's no giant teapot orbiting
Mars.
No, the onus is on the anus, and that's you, asshole. It's up to you
to demonstate your 'lifeforce' or 'Mind' or 'soul' or your ghosts and
deities and beasties or whatever your particular woo-woo is. You
can't, cuz there ain't no such thang, Lunatic Lee.
--DharmaTroll
"A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for
reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy
Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in
principle impossible to prove a negative. But 'agnostic' on its own
might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally
likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers
God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's. Bertrand
Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same
didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that
doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all
fours with its non-existence. The list of things about which we
strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and
celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a
particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or
Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is
not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are
also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have
to bother saying so."
-Richard Dawkins
liaM
Are you a biologist?
Lee
>No, I don't name 'lifeforce' as 'soul' or 'Mind' or 'ego' or 'vital
>force' because none of that bullshit exists.
i said at the end of my post "maybe not",
but being so sure that certain possibilities
cannot exist denies the unlimited abilities
of imagination to attain its rightful heritage
of turning possibilities into actualities. do you
really feel that you have enough information
to deny imagination its due course? if you
feel that you do, consider where all information
stems from in the first place.
liaM
>>
>>>> with goedel's incompleteness and heisenberg's uncertainty we
>>>> now have solid ground to utterly dismiss all woo woo once and
>>>> for all.
>>
>>> I've thought exactly the same. What a wonderful philosopher he
>>> was. Have you ever read the lectures in which Heisenberg
>>> describes his work ?
>>
>> woo rules !
>
> Do you have a link to these lectures liaM? (Heisenberg)
>
> anybody?
>
>
> ZN :D _/|\_ absolute permanent perfection overflowing without
> effort
Not yet. I'll check..
zenworm
multidisciplinary
and you?
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Yep. Your memory is astounding :) Or did you
> hear of him somewhere else than in one of my posts !?
After your post on him, I spoke with relatives
in the San Francisco area, and was told that
he had died and that he was over 100 years
old at the time of his death.
By the way, his laying on of hand on your knee
would be blasphemous from the orthodox
Christian point of view, I suppose.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
I have never claimed the non-existence of anything with certainty,
Loser Lee. You missed the remarkable quote with which I concluded my
response to your blather. Especially the part: "You have to be
agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the
likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-
existence. The list of things about which we strictly have to be
agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is
infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them --
teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on
you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to
say why we do not."
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
Nobody in Particular
>
> Yo asshole, I don't care if you throw personal attacks at me. My
> beef is if you use it as an argument. Note, I point out that you're
> an asshole. But I don't say "since you're an asshole, your argument
> must be false." That's what I object to. That's a logical fallacy
> called argumentum ad hominem. It's an invalid form of reasoning. If
> you're wrong, I try to provide reasons and evidence why you're
> wrong. But I don't every say that you're wrong solely on the grounds
> that you're an asshole. Got it asshole?
Bullies like you usually have deep-seated doubts of their own self-
worth, and often cover up for it by adopting some sort of belief
system.
Your certitude and arrogance are the typical attributes of a
truebeliever. You feel the need to defend your faith in the doctrine
of scientism against the attacks of infidels and be a missionary
evangelist for that belief system. The only difference between you
and a raving Southern Baptist is the polarity. Those guys are just as
certain about their belief as you are about yours, and just as
arrogant. If you were to flip that polarity, you might become the
next Jimmy Swaggart.
Your belief system asserts that sticking solely to the operations of
reason and logic is the only allowable strategy and to defend this
faith you need to attack and debase believers in other thought systems
as well as those who have not decided to follow any belief at all.
Your insistence on reason and logic to the exclusion of anything else
shows that you treat the operation of the left brain as gospel and
that of the right brain with contempt. Doing so, however, makes you
less than a complete human, in fact a pretty sorry excuse of a human.
A real human finds a balance between the left and the right brain,
between reason and feeling. You enthroned reason as your tyrant.
Reason knows well how to entertain, but it is a distorted mirror of
reality.
Lee
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
except that you are setting a double standard
by coming into court claiming that your client
is innocent but providing no alibi. i provided
evidence for my claim that there is a lifeforce
consciousness by saying that you certainly do
feel that you exist. your denial thereof is your
claim that you do not exist yet you have no
alibi thereof. in other words you have no alternative
to feeling that you exist.