Burnt, you once were a respected scientist around here. Now you're making a fool out of yourself by your trolling. Lets bring some humor in? Alright, but the joke is on you.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
lets bring in some humour
- Thread starter burnt
- Start date
Let's step back to pragmatism. So far it is the best we have. Can we look beyond that? Imo that would be even more interesting..
Also i would like to say that i do not doubt burnt is playing an important role. And the same can be said about any other person here or there. And even about the fly that has been bugging me all this morning and afternoon.
I shall open the window now.
fly fly fly..
Also i would like to say that i do not doubt burnt is playing an important role. And the same can be said about any other person here or there. And even about the fly that has been bugging me all this morning and afternoon.
I shall open the window now.
fly fly fly..
jbark said:
No I would not agree with that number. It is not the same argument at all, in fact there would be an inverse relationship to the percentage of the universe we understand, and the possibility of phenomena we cannot explain being viable.
In a sea of unknowns, what do we truely know anyway? Where is this sea of fraud you speak of? I've seen noting presented outside of one or two examples being applied to the whole of phenomena across the board. Calling a glass of water a sea is not logically supportable. This class of water has no salt in it, therefore the sea is not salty. Just becase one stock broker defrauds investors, it does not logically follow that all stock brokers defraud investors.
And the difference is that the less than 1% we know about the universe(wherever you got that number) is a workable, repeatable, reliable and NECESSARY knowledge.
True to a degree. Why is this knowledge "necessary"? We all go through life totally ignorant of the vast majority of knowledge out there, and we get along just fine. I pulled a number out of my ass in order to guage others opinion on on how much we actually do know about existence. You have not commited either way, so do you think I am correct or incorrect, or is there no possile way to know?
They did (vaugely), in a very unscientific manner. I mean come on, if people are going to tout the supremacy of science and claim that these things are all frauds and useless, you'd think they'd actually perform real tests to verify their hypothesis. Having some dude come on and say, "Well it can't be real because of the power of suggestibility" without any evidcece whatsoever is just a fraud in and of itself. People see what they want to see, and you have given validity to something that was not validated in anything but the most circumspect way.
How is it possible to tell if it is placebo, or it actually works? The results are the same either way, so who is to say it doesn't work? Ahh, the doctors and pharmaceuticals who these people are not going to see anymore for drugs and surgery...
Wouldn't you want to use reflexology, magnets, or reiki (if they work for you) to cure pain or other ailments rather than going under the knife? With weeks or months of physical theapy and a cabinet full of drugs to take?
If it works, it works. Period.
So reflexology-induced placebo is just as good as gamma radiation for cancer because the patient feels better for a while thus it "works" for at least a limited period? And because it "worked" it works? Seems like that statement is a fairly slippery slope, especially in relation to health practitioners.Saidin said:
saidan wrote:
So am I to take it that you believed (get ready for the judgment ) the jokers on that show? The magnet septuagenarian with feeble arithmetic skills? The nomadic reflexologist?
You've played devil's advocate before , so I can only assume you are again.
How about playing God's counsel?
Anyway, I think this is another case of round and round we go. I have rebutted most of your points in other threads, and you have rebutted mine, all in good humour!! I'm sorry if you took the Penn & Teller jibe personally, but I thought it was quite funny. Without discounting that we know very little (give me 2.3% wouldja?).
I think people need to lighten up, or simply not respond to contentious posts/threads. I enjoy the debates, but they frequently, recently, have been getting nasty and personal. This is not in the spirit of the place, as I understand it.
HIGHER GROUND. It's always the place to be to see the most.
JBArk
So am I to take it that you believed (get ready for the judgment
) the jokers on that show? The magnet septuagenarian with feeble arithmetic skills? The nomadic reflexologist?You've played devil's advocate before
, so I can only assume you are again. How about playing God's counsel?
Anyway, I think this is another case of round and round we go. I have rebutted most of your points in other threads, and you have rebutted mine, all in good humour!! I'm sorry if you took the Penn & Teller jibe personally, but I thought it was quite funny. Without discounting that we know very little (give me 2.3% wouldja?).
I think people need to lighten up, or simply not respond to contentious posts/threads. I enjoy the debates, but they frequently, recently, have been getting nasty and personal. This is not in the spirit of the place, as I understand it.
HIGHER GROUND. It's always the place to be to see the most.
JBArk
jbark said:So am I to take it that you believed (get ready for the judgment
You've played devil's advocate before
The individuals they chose for thier show were quite unbelieveable. They probably visited quite a few and decided to include the ones that looked the most like quack jobs to enhance their point. There is a lot more going on in the way they set up their show and their portrayals than what you see on the surface. They definatley skewed things a certain way to add apparent validity to their premise. People who think they are all quacks will see them as quacks. People who believe will be turned off because they are being purposefully cruel to a modality of healing that works for them.
There is so much subtle and not so subtle manipulation of the audience in this show that one has to have the eyes of a true skeptic, not a cynic or one who is gullible, to see what is really going on.
What I do believe are the people who said these treatements worked for them. So, since that nomadic reflexologist helped the one woman he treated alleviate pain, then I believe that in that case he did what he said he would do and her money was well spent.
I don't take anything personally, so no worries about that. And I concede that it is funny on a very superficial level...but when you can notice the manipulative, cruel and disengenious nature of the program as a whole, then it loses its humor and just becomes a sad example of a couple people making money at other people's expense.
How about .0023%
I totally agree. I believe I make an honest attempt to stay level headed and keep peronalisms out of it, but everyone has a breaking point, and like anyone, when I am insulted enough I will stand up for myself and others who are being bullied. I will contradict bullheaded arrogance whenever I can, because nothing is so clear cut as some assume.
Saidin wrote:
Nor as open as others assume. Hence the quagmire!! and the round and round and round....:roll:
JBArk
Nor as open as others assume. Hence the quagmire!!
and the round and round and round....:roll: JBArk
jbark said:Saidin wrote:
Nor as open as others assume. Hence the quagmire!!
JBArk
I agree.
This is why open minded skepticism is appropiate and not cyncism or gullability. If you come at these topics from a perspective of skepticism then one can have a debate, maybe change the boundries of either side a bit and come to a consensus to disagree but amicably.
I'm sure some of you have a better idea about channeling now than you did before, even if you still don't believe that it is a real phenomenon? And those who put all their faith into it have a better understaning to be cautious with such information as all may not be as it seems? Each side has gained a greater understanding.
If you come at it from the side of either gullability or cynicism, then there can be no common ground and both sides just entrench even further.
The problem lately (from my perspective) is that certain individuals have been militantly cynical in the face of potential gullability. Therefore a potential teach/learning opporunity is lost because people entrench into unsupporable beliefs rather than being skeptical and attempting to understand anothers point of view.
SnozzleBerry said:
If the results are the same in the long run, then yes. How can you disagree with this?
Where is the proof it is placebo? How can one tell the difference between the modality working and placebo effect?
If one can pay a reflexologist say $100 and they are pain free for a month, when you would have to spend an equal amount or perhaps more, perhaps less for a "drug" which you have to take daily, with all its various side effects, which would you honestly choose? For me, I would choose the reflexology, as it has had the same effectiveness for me and I therefore don't have to ingest a bunch of foreign chemicals which could be wrecking all sorts of havoc to my body that I may not be aware of for years.
I honestly doubt many people turn to alternative medicine first for major things such as cancer, but if you have tried "traditional" medicine and it hasn't worked, or the side effects are worse than whatever ailment you are attempting to have cured, why not try something else? Or even if you do go to alternative medicine first, and find that it doesn't work for you, you are always free to seek out a traditional practicioner.
Scaming people is unethical no matter what modality you choose, and any healer should be very clear about what they can do, what they may not be able to do, and what the risks are.
I completely agree. I think this (as non-diplomatically as they did it) is really what Penn and Teller were trying to highlight. Some of the "professionals" would only admit that "they weren't allowed" to say that it cured or helped whatever problems (that one guy seemed like he was trying to find any way to avoid saying that he waasn't allowed to say his practice wouldn't cure people). I think that the point you make rings true for any medical practice and I would guess (having seen no actual data and basing this solely on a gut feeling) that in general, practitioners of Western Medicine generally come more clean as to what their processes/medicines are actually able to achieve on a routine basis and what they can't do.Saidin said:
The way that reflexologist was talking, including encouraging his female apprentice to start practicing reflexology before being fully certified, it seemed like that was antithetical to the principles I believe medicine of any kind should adhere to. Granted, this was only one example that I'm extrapolating from, but it seems there are routinely stories in the news about quack practitioners (are there as many stories about this as medical malpractice or other issues with western medicine? i dunno). Ultimately I agree with you, anything that alleviates personal suffering (beyond a suggestibility illusion that lasts only for a few moments, which I would claim is not a true placebo effect) should be available to individuals in need. If a patient is legitimately helped by a placebo effect, I see nothing wrong with that, as long as they're not being charged $100 per pill for sugar pills.
SnozzleBerry said:
The reason for this is legal and regulatory. There are very strict guidelines set up by the government about what you can calim. You might have cured 1000/1000 people of cancer with toe nail fungus extract (TNFE, copyright Saidin, 2010
), but unless you have gone through years and years of strict, controlled studies then you cannot claim anything unless permitted to by the government. Even Jeebus would have to be poked, prodded and tested for years before he could claim he could heal anyone, (assuming he existed and could actually do some of the things claimed of him). Its not that he was trying to avoid saying his practcie wouldn't cure people...but he is required by Law not to say that his practice will cure people, even if he believes or it actually does. He could go to jail/be fined for claiming such.
I never got that far through the video series, as thier methodology of presenting their point of view turned me off by the middle of the second part...purposefully making fun of people and setting them up to look like fools got tiresome. But I agree, if you are going to practice any modality of healing you should be fully certified by whatever standard they have before working on anyone else, unless you let them know up front that you have not recieved your full training. Full disclosure.
Again, I would put money on the fact that they probably interviewed 5-10 or more people of each modality before choosing one to highlight on their show. And of course they are going to pick the biggest "quack" which will only help validate the point they are attempting to make. They are stacking the deck, skewing the dice in their favor. It is so transparent.
I personally hear/read many orders of magnitude more stories about medical malpractice than I do about people being scammed by alternative medicine. But I cannot say that is the case for sure, and may just be my perception. It probably depends upon where you live.
So if you agree that anything that alleviates personal suffering beyond an illusionary effect that lasts a very short time should be available. Then can you concede that this show has done a terrible disservice to many people who may have been potentially helped by these modalities but won't now because they saw them "discredited" in a very disengenious way?
