Hitting a brick wall

[Suggestologist]

I may not know what is best for me, but I have a damned good idea what is bad for me. Participating in conversations about "the paranormal" is not good for me, and I am under no obligation to participate.

Nobody's under that obligation.

I don't worry about whether or not I'm effective in writing. When I write, my concern is whether or not I am saying what I want to say. How the reader reacts is beyond my control.

I'm sure you'll acknowledge that while the reader is unpredictable, there are ways of writing that will usually get a predictable response. And the more you focus on getting the reaction you want, the more likely you will get it.

This reminds me. In the early 90's, I debated on BBS systems with christians trying to convince them that the bible was nonsense. One of them was a Church of Christ guy. After I beat him badly in a debate on the BBS, he challenged me to debate at his church. Well, I just didn't have the guts, the confidence, to do it. I had to decline.

If I were as interested in that today as I was back then, I probably would accept such a challenge.

 

[BillHoyt]

People may accept working hypotheses from other people. But they don't actually believe anything until they experience it. They do not automatically respond with the full reality of things until it is experienced.

You are projecting your delusional approach to life to others, kid. Don't shackle me with your ignorance. I don't need to lose a finger to dry ice because I somehow can't get the reality until I experience it. Neither did I need to run the sharp edge of a knife along my skin to know I can cut myself with it. I've never had whooping cough, but I already know the symptoms. I won't knowingly expose myself to HIV because I cannot understand that I will sicken and will die from it.

Neither do I need to discuss this further with you to know you're at least one sandwich shy of a picnic.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Fact is, you can stop being skeptical and just go with it...

False, I cannot do that. Just like I can't decide to honestly believe in Santa for one day then pick up on not believing in Santa the next day. Skepticism is part of who I am, when I investigate things, I look for evidence. The mere fact that I actually look for evidence makes me a skeptic. If I could lay my skepticism aside, I'd be into Reiki right now because I really do think it would be cool if that crap actually worked. I'd also believe in gods and psychics too. Belief is not a thing one can simply toggle on and off.


It used to be a part of who you were that you messed your diapers several times a day. You probably don't need Depends adult diapers yet, but you can put them on any time you wanted. There's absolutely nothing stopping you but your attitude.

False analogy, potty training has nothing to do with skepticism and belief.

"It's a part of who I am." is an excuse to not do something different. Temporary as it may be.

Is that like not trying to be homsexual for a day simply because being heterosexual is an excuse not to try something different?

I'm not open because your sales pitch is unattractive. I already have a car, what makes yours so special that it can't even be test driven before selling?

You are violating your own rules of placing skepticism aside. I'm asking you to place your skepticism to the side and just buy the car. When you ask questions about my care, you are being skeptical.

No, it's more that I want you to test drive a couple more cars. And I want you to have fun as you do, and let go of skepticism thet this could really be your next car as you drive it.

Test driving a car before buying IS skepticism in motion.

Great. Does "not proven effective" mean "not likely effective" or "0.05% chance of ever being proven effective" or something like that?

No, it means that there is not enough, or no evidence to support the notion that it actually works.


Well, that's the Reiki practitioner's job. I'm only interested in getting you to have an authentic experience on your test drives.

Screw you, my choices are mine to make, keep your suggestions to yourself. I will not simply become insane for a day because you think it's a good idea.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Doctors make people feel good and relieve them of money as well, are you opposed to medical doctors? There was even an expose` recently about how doctors were paying people to have unneeded operations so that they could relieve their insurance companies of money.

Where did I endorse that fraudulent practice? As I have said several times on this thread, I have nothing against people charging money for pain relief so long as they do not claim that their actions are having other healing effects which are unproven. According to my friend, that is what it claimed about Reiki.

I believe I objected to your not being open to new experience. To learning more about the subject and how the other person thinks about the subject.

So, just to clarify, is this your position?

I do not understand the claims made by Reiki even though my friend, who is a trainee Reiki practitioner, has explained them to me.
Further, I cannot learn about Reiki without participating in it, and my opinion on the matter is invalid until that happens.
Further, if I do receive Reiki treatment and I am unimpressed with it (as in the case of thaiboxerken), then its failure is down to my not giving it a proper chance and therefore my opinion is still invalid.

Isn't it just true that you will continue to discard my opinion until it agrees with yours?

 

[Ed]

You're into sloganeering, I see. I've jumped off of enough things to have the experience that the higher you jump from the harder you land.

.

Well, maybe yes, maybe no.

You are suggesting that physical laws some how can be extrapolated to situations beyond your experience. I think that we all pretty much do that. Why then would these physical laws break down in the world of woo? Take the inverse square law, for example.

It seems that you are sensibly cognicent of physical limitations when it involves your physical safety. When, however, your intellectual safety is imperiled you are Evil Keneval. Does this sum it up?

 

[Hazelip]

Wackiness in the workplace...

Which is where I'm not today with my painful sore throat and an unwillingness to spread infection to my co-workers...

Anyway, a week or so ago, I was talking to my officemate. A good guy, a friend of mine, and we've even hung out together outside of work. A rarity for me.

He and I have a mutual acquaintance at work, a seventh-day adventist, and I think our mutual friend may be working him over for purposes of conversion. Fine and dandy, I don't really give a rip.

But, the time to which I refer talking with my friend, the subject of my atheism arose. This is also fine and dandy. I take the position that if it's OK for others to talk openly about christianity or being jewish or muslim, it's OK for me to talk about being an atheist. He particular topic this time was our calendar year.

His whole argument was that since I use the system of accounting years based upon the time following the death of christ, I am not a real atheist. I was flabbergasted. I asked him which system should I use, and he replied from the beginning of time, essentially, an unknowable answer. I pointed out that people of Chinese origin who do not use the Chinese year are still Chinese, but this slid off him as easily as Quaker State off a duck's back.

I'm considering asking him for alternative names for Wednesday and Thursday...

Then, last week, I got cold in the office and I was told to eat more yang foods. Wha..?

See, I've made changes to my eating habits and combined with exercise, I've lost more than 50 pounds over the last year. As a result, I eat carrots, drink buckets of water, fruits, and other veggies throughout the day.

I normally run pretty hot. If I could, I'd probably have my house set to 65 degrees year-round. So, me complaining about being cold at the office was unusual. I was standing there talking with my hands thrust under my pits and hugging myself, and when asked, I complained about being cold.

This person, a former manager of mine, didn't comment on my loss of personal insulation, or the fact that I was wearing a t-shirt and jeans on a Friday, or that perhaps the office air conditioning was too damned low in my office. She asked me what I had eaten, and I replied "two carrots, an apple, an orange, and about a liter of water" thinking that I just needed a hot cup of Joe. Instead, she gives me this yang comment.

 

[Suggestologist]

Fact is, you can stop being skeptical and just go with it...

False, I cannot do that. Just like I can't decide to honestly believe in Santa for one day then pick up on not believing in Santa the next day. Skepticism is part of who I am, when I investigate things, I look for evidence. The mere fact that I actually look for evidence makes me a skeptic. If I could lay my skepticism aside, I'd be into Reiki right now because I really do think it would be cool if that crap actually worked.

I'll point out for later reference that you are "sold" on Reiki. You'd like to have it, if it worked. You have not sold me on the car below.

I'd also believe in gods and psychics too. Belief is not a thing one can simply toggle on and off.

I disagree. And, Belief is not a thing, period.

It used to be a part of who you were that you messed your diapers several times a day. You probably don't need Depends adult diapers yet, but you can put them on any time you wanted. There's absolutely nothing stopping you but your attitude.

False analogy, potty training has nothing to do with skepticism and belief.

You're missing the point of the analogy. If it had something to do with skepticism and belief it wouldn't be a good analogy. The purpose of analogy is to get you to think about one thing in a dissimilar context. At least that's my purpose.

"It's a part of who I am." is an excuse to not do something different. Temporary as it may be.

Is that like not trying to be homsexual for a day simply because being heterosexual is an excuse not to try something different?

If you're sold on it, go ahead.

I'm not open because your sales pitch is unattractive. I already have a car, what makes yours so special that it can't even be test driven before selling?

You are violating your own rules of placing skepticism aside. I'm asking you to place your skepticism to the side and just buy the car. When you ask questions about my care, you are being skeptical.

No, I am asking you to sell. There are many ideas that I'm just not interested enough to explore right now. The stuff surrounding "Atlantis" is one example. It's just not interesting. Fact is, I'm not sold on Reiki; I've read some of what's on the internet and skimmed books at the book store, it just doesn't excite me.

On the other hand, you have already expressed the fact that you are sold on Reiki -- you'd like to have it, if it works.

No, it's more that I want you to test drive a couple more cars. And I want you to have fun as you do, and let go of skepticism thet this could really be your next car as you drive it.

Test driving a car before buying IS skepticism in motion.

I don't agree. If you don't believe you could ever buy the car, skepticism blocks the full experience of driving it. It's the not believing you could ever buy the car that is skepticism. Test driving is hypothesis testing; which both the active believer and the active skeptic must do before they can form a full opinion.

Great. Does "not proven effective" mean "not likely effective" or "0.05% chance of ever being proven effective" or something like that?

No, it means that there is not enough, or no evidence to support the notion that it actually works.

How likely is it that it will ever be proven effective?

Well, that's the Reiki practitioner's job. I'm only interested in getting you to have an authentic experience on your test drives.

Screw you, my choices are mine to make, keep your suggestions to yourself. I will not simply become insane for a day because you think it's a good idea.

You're insane every day. It's a shame you haven't yet noticed that every one is.

 

[Suggestologist]

You are projecting your delusional approach to life to others, kid. Don't shackle me with your ignorance. I don't need to lose a finger to dry ice because I somehow can't get the reality until I experience it. Neither did I need to run the sharp edge of a knife along my skin to know I can cut myself with it. I've never had whooping cough, but I already know the symptoms. I won't knowingly expose myself to HIV because I cannot understand that I will sicken and will die from it.

Neither do I need to discuss this further with you to know you're at least one sandwich shy of a picnic.

You know, I just heard the silliest thing. Some "scientists" published a result that warming up before exercising doesn't to anything to prevent injuring yourself while exercising. Are you willing to trust them?

 

[LFTKBS]

You know, I just heard the silliest thing. Some "scientists" published a result that warming up before exercising doesn't to anything to prevent injuring yourself while exercising. Are you willing to trust them?

Not on the results of one study, no. If someone replicates it with proper technique etc etc and it supports the original paper, then I'll focus less on the warm-up, probably.

Where is this study, anyway?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Suggestologist is not a person who likes to have rational discussions, but instead plays games of semantics and completely ignores points made by other people.

Because of this, I am placing him on my ignore list.

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggestologist is not a person who likes to have rational discussions, but instead plays games of semantics and completely ignores points made by other people.

Because of this, I am placing him on my ignore list.

If you're going to make accusations, make specific accusations. Which points do you feel have been ignored?

What you call "games of semantics" is what other people call taking a different perspective on things.

If you place me on ignore, you're the one ignoring points made.

 

[Suggestologist]

Not on the results of one study, no. If someone replicates it with proper technique etc etc and it supports the original paper, then I'll focus less on the warm-up, probably.

Where is this study, anyway?

It's one of those radio and CNN headline things. The media throws around such crap because people who are science-oriented are attracted to them. I'm highly sceptical of this one.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

If you're going to make accusations, make specific accusations. Which points do you feel have been ignored?

This one:

So, just to clarify, is this your position?

I do not understand the claims made by Reiki even though my friend, who is a trainee Reiki practitioner, has explained them to me.
Further, I cannot learn about Reiki without participating in it, and my opinion on the matter is invalid until that happens.
Further, if I do receive Reiki treatment and I am unimpressed with it (as in the case of thaiboxerken), then its failure is down to my not giving it a proper chance and therefore my opinion is still invalid.

I understand that when you see the word "clarify" you break into a cold sweat, but it really would help move the discussion along.

 

[Suggestologist]

This one:



I understand that when you see the word "clarify" you break into a cold sweat, but it really would help move the discussion along.

Your opinion is not as potent as someone who has participated in it, if you haven't. There are always elements you learn by participation that you won't learn by reading about it.

If you don't give it a proper chance, then you can't say it's failed. If you put your skepticism on the shelf for however long the ritual procedure takes, then you can say it failed if it does.

If you view your self-concept in static terms, remember that beliefs are processes, not things.

Sitting on this chair, I believe that it's there under me. If I stand up, I still believe it's there. If I attempt to sit back on it, and someone has moved it, my belief that it's there immediately changes as I tumble to the floor. See how easy it is to change beliefs?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Your opinion is not as potent as someone who has participated in it, if you haven't. There are always elements you learn by participation that you won't learn by reading about it.

This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.

If you don't give it a proper chance, then you can't say it's failed. If you put your skepticism on the shelf for however long the ritual procedure takes, then you can say it failed if it does.

This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

I'm done now. Cue the gobbledygook.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.



This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

I'm done now. Cue the gobbledygook.

What an excellent post and great analogy!

Oops, sorry. It was gobbledygook's time

Seriously, though, that was great analogy about not needing to experience something to realise it is silly and founded on nonsense.

Yet I suppose you'd never really understand what it is to be a Skull 'n' Bones unless you'd been £!$*ed by a bush.

And why do I 'see' the word 'fisted' in my censored word above?????

 

[Suggestologist]

This argument does not always hold true. Take the example of a person who is called up to the stage to witness a magic trick. The magician does his trick, the volunteer is amazed. He goes home that night and tells his friends about the astounding feat which happened to him. Does this person have a better understanding of what really happened than the audience? Or of someone standing in the wings? Not at all. He has been deceived just the same.

A reiki session is an exercise in suggestion. Just like a magic trick. Being on the receiving end gives you no special perspective.

What we're talking about are people who are not even in the room at the time of the magic trick. They can't comment on what happened and how it happened because they weren't there. They may have great explanations but they have no way of knowing if their explanations even match what happened. This is like people who hypothesize that when people walk on hot coals, the coals aren't really hot. The hypothesis is great, but it's wrong; and they'd know it's wrong if they had the actual experience.

This is still nonsense. Why does it have to be me on the bed? If I had a disease to be cured (which I don't) and I succumbed to the procedure (which I won't) then two different outcomes might result:

1) My disease goes away. This doesn't prove reiki works since diseases go away all the time. We have an immune system.

Yes, it's amazing how many timely remissions happen, isn't it. How does one prove that a particular remission was spontaneous?

And if one were to suggest that one's brain is connected to one's immune system, what would be the response?

I mean if someone were to suggest that immune response could be conditioned, you know; like reading about Pavlov makes people salivate.

2)My disease remains. You simply say I didn't give it a chance (you wouldn't even need to substantiate that suggestion) and your position is defended to any woos who will listen.

No, the only way to test it would be to run a proper controlled test of the effectiveness of Reiki vs normal medicine in the treatment of specified conditions in a multitude of test subjects. Anything else is so subjective as to be inconsequential.

You're mischaracterizing my position on point 2.

And I have no objection to running controlled tests.

And people do not gain belief by controlled tests. Smokers will tell you, yes they know about smokers getting lung cancer, but they don't believe it will happen to them.

Yes, we know asteroids hit planets, but we don't believe it will happen to us. Yes, we know terrorists attack, but we don't believe it will happen to us; until it happens.

Yes, the patient says, they know they should take all of their antibiotics, but they often don't, because they believe their feeling better more than they believe what their doctor told them.

 

[BillHoyt]

It's one of those radio and CNN headline things. The media throws around such crap because people who are science-oriented are attracted to them. I'm highly sceptical of this one.

So skeptical that you first assert the existence of a study, and now don't name it, but defer to the media "headlines"? Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no sport here, sport.

 

[Suggestologist]

So skeptical that you first assert the existence of a study, and now don't name it, but defer to the media "headlines"? Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel. There's no sport here, sport.

Well, let's run with it. The issue was brought up that one shouldn't believe the first study about any specific topic. One should wait until a large enough study is done, etc. Well, who decides when the study is large enough and when it's well done enough to be believed? Is that not an individual decision based on individuals' experience with studies and maybe even with the particular investigators?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

What we're talking about are people who are not even in the room at the time of the magic trick. They can't comment on what happened and how it happened because they weren't there.

I have seen a reiki session in progress. Did I not mention that? Sure, I wasn't on the bed, but I am aware of the procedure. Am I now qualified to talk about it?

Yes, it's amazing how many timely remissions happen, isn't it. How does one prove that a particular remission was spontaneous?

You'd have to track what other treatments a person was having. That would be where the controlled tests come in. How are those going, by the way?

And if one were to suggest that one's brain is connected to one's immune system, what would be the response?

Umm.. that the brain bone's connected to the neck bone?

You're mischaracterizing my position on point 2.

So who gets to judge if someone has given it a proper chance? You? What does "put your skepticism aside" actually mean? Does it mean not actually asking for evidence?