faith healing,astrology

[idunno]

Hi see what this person says about Randi`s methods to debunk healers and Astrologers.He means Randi not Harris:

THis Mr. Harris is making a categorial error: He tries to prove or disprove shamanic or spiritual actions with scientific methods. That is not possible because scientific methods are not fit to prove or disprove something that has to do with the other, non-ordinary side of the world. There is NO dogma or rule in science that says that things, that cannot be described with scientific methods do not exist. This dogma or law does NOT exist. Still, most people and sadly most scientist believe this, even though it is written nowhere.

When a shamanic healer practices his kind of "surgery", it is obvious that the thing he takes "out of the patient's belly" was in his hand before. The people from the shamanic culture would say: "Of course!" It is not the visible act that counts here but the events taking place on the non-ordinary side of the world, events that have an expression in the actions of the "surgeon".

Mr. Harris obviously has no background about shamanic culture, he should shut up.

Also about the horoscopes: He found a terrific text that flatters everybody and must be written in such a common manner that it fits everybody. This proves that the text he gave the students was brilliantly written. It does NOT prove that other horoscopes would also fit everybody or that astrology doesn't work.

It reminds me of an advertisement on the German radio that follows the same logic: "Dear mothers, what would you rather feed your little child, a steak or this joghurt?" "Well, the joghurt tastes very good and has a lot of calcium." "Joghurt - as good as a litlle steak!"

 

[chillzero]

link?

 

[idunno]

link?

what link'? Its about Randi`s videos in Youtube

 

[mumchup]

The first, and most important problem with that argument is that it's criticizing the wrong thing. Randi is not trying to "explain" or "disprove" effects that take place. He's asking the person making the claims to prove that there is an effect at all. It doesn't matter whether science, scientists or testers are equipped to "deal" with or "understand" paranormal goings on.
For example, if one were to claim that they can find water using dowsing rods, the first thing to do would be to see if they can actually find water using dowsing rods. So you set up a test with one or more water sources that are unknown to the dowser. If the dowser can't find the water any more often than chance, there's no phenomena to study, disprove or understand.

 

[Mojo]

THis Mr. Harris is making a categorial error: He tries to prove or disprove shamanic or spiritual actions with scientific methods. That is not possible because scientific methods are not fit to prove or disprove something that has to do with the other, non-ordinary side of the world.

If "shamanic or spiritual actions" have an effect on the real world (such as, for example, curing an illness) then it will be possible to observe this effect using "scientific methods". Similarly, if "shamanic or spiritual actions" make predictions about the real world (as astrology claims to) then science can examine these predictions to see how accurate they are.

There is NO dogma or rule in science that says that things, that cannot be described with scientific methods do not exist. This dogma or law does NOT exist. Still, most people and sadly most scientist believe this, even though it is written nowhere.

On the other hand, if something cannot be detected, it might as well not exist. If the effects of "something that has to do with the other, non-ordinary side of the world" cannot be detected in the real world, it is reasonable to assume that they don't exist.

 

[chillzero]

what link'? Its about Randi`s videos in Youtube

Oh! I see!!

How did I not realise that????

Do you think you could put some helpful information up for those of us who are not psychic? I mean, "...see what this person says..." isn't really telling me what I need to know to find whatever you might be takling about. And it might also help me to identify which bits of your post are yours, and which belong to 'this person'.

 

[idunno]

Oh! I see!!

How did I not realise that????

Do you think you could put some helpful information up for those of us who are not psychic? I mean, "...see what this person says..." isn't really telling me what I need to know to find whatever you might be takling about. And it might also help me to identify which bits of your post are yours, and which belong to 'this person'.

read more on psychic healig
http://metamind.net/enigmaipsysur.html

 

[idunno]

. It doesn't matter whether science, scientists or testers are equipped to "deal" with or "understand" paranormal goings on.

-I think it matters.

 

[Nero]

. I think it matters/QUOTE]

Without wishing to sound rude:

I think you're nutters.

 

[Bronze Dog]

. It doesn't matter whether science, scientists or testers are equipped to "deal" with or "understand" paranormal goings on.

-I think it matters.

Science doesn't yet have to "deal with" or "understand" the purple unicorn in my garage.

Of course, there is no purple unicorn in my garage (at least, last time I checked), so that hardly matters.

Similarly, there's no faith healing, shamanic healing, or whatever to explain, yet.

 

[idunno]

. I think it matters/QUOTE]

Without wishing to sound rude:

I think you're nutters.

and youre obviously

 

[RichardR]

THis Mr. Harris is making a categorial error: He tries to prove or disprove shamanic or spiritual actions with scientific methods. That is not possible because scientific methods are not fit to prove or disprove something that has to do with the other, non-ordinary side of the world.

Well if he can't prove or disprove it with science, how does anyone know that shamanic or spiritual actions even exist? What method did he use to detarmine and evaluate his claims if science is "not fit" to do so?

This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing - but until he demonstrates his better method for evaluating claims, and provides evidence that it is indeed a better method, the appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

 

[Wheezebucket]

What the hell is Joghurt?

 

[GrnMtSkeptic]

What the hell is Joghurt?

I think it's what we call shin-splints. Though I'm not sure how you'd feed them to a child...

 

[RichardR]

What the hell is Joghurt?

It's a dairy product produced by bacterial fermentation of milk.

But that's not important now.

 

[idunno]

Well if he can't prove or disprove it with science, how does anyone know that shamanic or spiritual actions even exist? What method did he use to detarmine and evaluate his claims if science is "not fit" to do so?

This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing - but until he demonstrates his better method for evaluating claims, and provides evidence that it is indeed a better method, the appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

to be honest i dont trust Shamans who teach things like meaningful coincidences and animal totems.I found most coincidences in my life to be meaningless

 

[idunno]

Also about the horoscopes: He found a terrific text that flatters everybody and must be written in such a common manner that it fits everybody. This proves that the text he gave the students was brilliantly written. It does NOT prove that other horoscopes would also fit everybody or that astrology doesn't work.


I agree with the starement above as i myself did such tests and they only worked whe i used vague statements.
But when i told a Flexible,adaptable Water lady that she was rigid and stubborn she immediately denied.

 

[idunno]

It's a dairy product produced by bacterial fermentation of milk.

But that's not important now.

Joghurt?
The best thing to replace Mayonayse in salads

 

[idunno]

>Well if he can't prove or disprove it with science, how does anyone know that shamanic or spiritual actions even exist?

Only through personal experience.

>What method did he use to detarmine and evaluate his claims if science is "not fit" to do so?

Personal experiences. It is the nature of personal experiences that they are personal and cannot be shared.
If you make this personal experience, there is no more need for a proof.
If you refuse to make this personal experience, stick to what science can explain, i.e. the common world.

>This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing

From the website that was referred to:
>No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right.

Well, most people I know do claim so.

>However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works.

This contradicts the other sentence that stands just before it.
And it is simply not true. Because science can not evaluate the parts of the universe that they cannot measure.
What does science say about love, meaning, wisdom, healing etc.?

- but until he demonstrates his better method for evaluating claims, and provides evidence that it is indeed a better method, the appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

Those "claims" don't need to be evaluated, only experienced. Personally.
Scientist are cowards you shy away from personal experience that would turn them into living beings. Like "biology" tries to find the secret of life by looking at dead tissue.


Robert

 

[Mojo]

>Well if he can't prove or disprove it with science, how does anyone know that shamanic or spiritual actions even exist?

Only through personal experience.

>What method did he use to detarmine and evaluate his claims if science is "not fit" to do so?

Personal experiences. It is the nature of personal experiences that they are personal and cannot be shared.
If you make this personal experience, there is no more need for a proof.
If you refuse to make this personal experience, stick to what science can explain, i.e. the common world.

Do these "personal experiences" have any effect on the real world? For example, does "shamanic healing" actually make people recover from illness better than they would without the "shamanic healing"? If it does, then this will be obsevable by scientific methods. If the effects aren't observable, they might as well not exist.

>This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing

From the website that was referred to:
>No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right.

Well, most people I know do claim so.

They are probably either charlatans or woo-woos putting up a strawman argumant. No reputable scientist would claim that science has all the answers or is always right.

>However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works.

This contradicts the other sentence that stands just before it.

No it doesn't.

And it is simply not true. Because science can not evaluate the parts of the universe that they cannot measure.

Science does not evaluate things that cannot be detected. And neither can you.

Those "claims" don't need to be evaluated, only experienced. Personally.

If something can be experienced, it can be detected, unless the experiences are purely imaginary.

Scientist are cowards you shy away from personal experience that would turn them into living beings. Like "biology" tries to find the secret of life by looking at dead tissue.

No it doesn't.