• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Herbal Healing

Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.

Ashles
I didn't lose belief in Uri Geller because of sceptics - I lost belief in him because he was caught out by relatives and friends and was too open with them about his methods of trickery.

I wasn't talking abot the SCENT of pine disinfectant - 2 chemicals from pine are used - one has little antibacterial property and is added solely for scent but the other is added for antibacterial properties.

Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.
 
jambo372 said:
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
Click to expand...
Oh for pete's sake, he's discovered that we're No True Scotsmen. Dolt.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Just as soon, for example, as you show me some EVIDENCE that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures, then I will believe that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures. Until then, I won't.
 
jambo372 said:
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.
Click to expand...
The abysmally low standards of evidence you accept, and your unwillingness to do any research, plus the posture with closed mind, eyes tight shut and fingers in ears, will give you a bit of a problem, however, old bean.
Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.
Click to expand...
That would indeed cause problems in debunking them. Perhaps next time you go, you could take a tape recorder. Or tell them about the $1,000,000 for which they're eligible. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.
 
Why would I want to do that ?
I am not a sceptic ( thank God ), I support them in their work and have no wish to debunk them. Whether or not they take the challenge is up to them and most of them are only interested in other mediums and believers anyway.
I don't accept low standards of evidence.
 
Jambo said- "...If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it."

Word to the wise: You may be able to hold a mix of rationalist scientific and less rational pseudoscientific views, without experiencing cross confusion or demonstrating inconsistent attitudes. Many people do and hold down successful careers in science or medicine.

However, I strongly advise you not to advertise your beliefs (should you still hold them) when you get to university. You may not respect your teachers , but believe me, it helps if they respect you. The work is hard enough without swimming against the tide.

By the way, nobody here thinks sceptics or scientists (not the same thing) are better, nicer, kinder or morally superior people.
We just think they use better tools.

Using dull tools is daft.

Keep defending your corner here, please. I don't know if you think you learn much in these threads, but I know I do.
 
As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )
 
jambo372 said:
As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )
Click to expand...

It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking.
 
geni said:
It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I'm a Christian, and I haven't kept this a secret, and I haven't noticed anyone think the worse of me for this. (I stay away from the Religion part of the forum because the number of straw men is bad for my hay fever :D .) MLynn too. And though I'm not sure what brand of theist BSM is, he's another. We all participate happily in the scientific aspects of the discussion on this forum.

Insisting that you believe things that are objectively testable as false in the real world, however, and yet maintaining that these beliefs do not affect your credibility in science, is pure wishful thinking.

Rolfe.
 
jambo372 said:
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence
Click to expand...
That is precisely how the scientific method (and indeed skepticism) works. You have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong if that's what the evidence shows.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.
 
jambo372 in laboratory some time in the future . . .

Lab Director: "Right, jambo, it's time to put mugwort under proper scientific scrutiny with some double-blind tests into its efficacy in treating seizures. Where will we start?"

jambo372: "Oh, no need to go to all that bother, Mr Director. I know it works."

Lab Director: "How so?"

jambo372: "Well, Mrs MacTavish who goes to my spiritualist church is a fully qualified herbalist and she told me it works."

Lab Director: "I don't think you are suited to this type of work, young man. Please clear your desk and leave the building. Your final paycheck will be posted to you."
:(

You didn't tell us why you are so antipathetic to sceptics. I ask again: Do you think scepticism is somehow a bad thing, and, if so, why?
 
jambo372 said:
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.
Click to expand...

You have got it, to use the colloquial phrase, totally arse for elbow! Your comprehension of what is being said to you here is severely lacking, jambo.:(
 
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:
 
jambo372 said:
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Click to expand...
How many psychics have to turn out to be frauds before you put the burden of proof on the psychics themselves?

And how they squirm when you do!
 
jambo372 said:
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...

Warning, Will Robinson! Sense of humour failure!;)

But did you come here to try to learn something, or just to knock Randi? To be honest, you don't seem to be taking in what is being said to you.

I bet your woo woo friends say sceptics are just a bunch of 'know it alls', or 'smart Alecs'. True or false?
 
You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.
 
jambo372 said:
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?
Click to expand...


On the basis that a worry numeber of chemists end up as biologists (and about 10 percent up as accountants) you would be amazed what a microbilogist could end up doing.
 
jambo372 said:
You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.
Click to expand...

OK. Do you believe that ALL psychics and mediums are in touch with dead people, or just SOME?

How do you differentiate between a genuine psychic or medium and a false one?

Do you think that false psychics and mediums are frauds?

Have you, personally, had anything you would call 'proof' from a psychic or medium that convinced you they were genuine? (I'm not talking about anecdotal -- somebody told somebody -- evidence, but something that really convinced you on a one-to-one basis)

Like what?

If there are real psychics and mediums, why have none ever won the million dollar prize?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom