Question about the supernatural act

[Rolfe]

Hypnosis is effective for smoking cessation;

Evidence, please?

Rolfe.

 

[Suggestologist]

Evidence, please?

Rolfe.

No time this morning, I'll find sources for you in a college textbook I've acquired by Crasilneck and Hall, Clinical Hypnosis (Second Edition) later today.

 

[Aster]

If I were religious I would scream "Heresy!" and point a finger at you. But I'm not, so I'm not going to.

Hence I'd pray "Forgive them, for they don't know what the're doing." The fact that you think you're not religious is causing you to act more religiously than before.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

Hypnosis is effective for smoking cessation; not sure about eczema.

Hypnosis is one effective method that supports the therapeutic intervention that can be effective for smoking cessation, but it is the therapeutic intervention and process that does the works. In case of eczema obviously the same applies.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Powa]

The fact that you think you're not religious is causing you to act more religiously than before.

Um... I don't understand this one, sorry. Are you saying that I'm religious and don't even know it? Should I start to pray? I don't know how. Should I start going to church? Which religion do I choose? There are so many. Which one would you recommend?

Argh, you really messed up my life.





(I'm kidding of course)

 

[Aster]

Originally posted by Earthborn They do indeed argue that there is no need for alternative ways to things that have proven effective, since that would include things that have not proven effective.

Alternative medicine is a multi billion dollar industry. It is pretty ignorent (especially for an American) to say that there isn't a need (demand) for it. And you don't hear me defending the disputables amongst them, but there are charlatans and incompetent practitioners as much as brilliant minds in both camps; there always will be.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

Um... I don't understand this one, sorry. Are you saying that I'm religious and don't even know it? Should I start to pray? I don't know how. Should I start going to church? Which religion do I choose? There are so many. Which one would you recommend?

Argh, you really messed up my life.

(I'm kidding of course)

If I were religious I would scream "Heresy!" and point a finger at you. But I'm not, so I'm not going to.

In the past and even today people who consider themselves religious, do things that are completely contradictory to their faith. This happens either deliberately (fundamentalist terrorists) or as a result of ignorence for instance (sheep following). You would scream 'Heresy' and point a finger at someone. This is an act that constitutes many a contradiction with religion. Think about the consequence of your behavior. Now you're not religious, it makes you not behave like this. The consequence is that you have not constituted a contradiciton with religion but instead that you have acted according to what religion stands for. You may declare yourself not to be religious for whatever reason, but you are more religious than you perhaps realize. Most people are.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Aster's ignorant assertion is that all people have a religion, whether they think so or not. It's simply just another restatement of the "everyone has faith" fallacy.

 

[Aster]

Aster's ignorant assertion is that all people have a religion, whether they think so or not. It's simply just another restatement of the "everyone has faith" fallacy.

Not that all people have a religion, rather a natural base for religious/spiritual belief. Many people who say they're not religious do say they believe in 'something'. Skeptics, I assume, do not believe in anything, unless proven by science ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Suggestologist]

Hypnosis is one effective method that supports the therapeutic intervention that can be effective for smoking cessation, but it is the therapeutic intervention and process that does the works. In case of eczema obviously the same applies.

Rgds.,
Aster.

I agree, as de Shazer has said, "Hypnosis is more like novacaine than like tooth extraction."

 

[Suggestologist]

Evidence, please?

Rolfe.

OK. Pulling out my copy of Clinical Hypnosis: Principles and Applications (Second Edition) by Harold B. Crasilneck, Ph.D. (Clinical Professor of Psychiatry; Clinical Professor of Anesthesiology) and James A. Hall, M.D. (Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry) of University of Texas Health Science Center; Southwestern Medial School; Dallas, Texas; published by Allyn and Bacon, 1985.

Smoking cessasion on p.222:

The most comprehensive collection of articles on the use of hypnosis in the treatment of the cigarette habit was published in Volume 18 of the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (October 1970). The eight articles and discussions published in that issue won the society's award for best clinical contributions of the year.

Holroyd (1980) has published a prize-winning evaluative review of hypnosis for the treatment of smoking. In addition to participation in the October 1970 issue of the SCEH Journal, we have reported elsewhere on the effectiveness of hypnosis in the control of smoking addiction (Crasilneck and Hall, 1976). Many others have testified to the usefulness of hypnotherapy in the problem of psychological addiction to tobacco, which causes and aggravates so many medical problems (Bowers, 1976; Chiasson, 1982; Jeffrey, Gentry and Greuling, 1982; Klauber, 1982; Moore, 1982; Ringrose, 1980).

Spiegal, (1970) reported on his single-treatment method to stop smoking. The single session was 45 minutes. It was found that at least one of every five smokers could be helped. Dengrove (1970), in discussing Spiegal's paper, emphasized how behavioral modification techniques might be applied to the smoking problem.

Much more discussion of the psychodynamics of smoking and specific techniques follow.

Ok, let's see what they say about eczema, p.279:

Hollander (1959) was able to inhibit picking of the face in two women with excoriated acne. Motoda (1971) similarly inhibited scratching to enhance the effect of medication in an eczema case. Eczema treatment by hypnosis has also been described by Goodman (1962) and Portnoy (1961).

Now, the only "woo-woo" thing I could find in the index was on the topic of clairvoyance, which was relegated to the (ancient) history introduction section on p.9.

[The Marquis de Puysegur (1751-1828)] also felt that hypnosis was associated with clairvoyance, a speculation that served to maintain popular interest in the phenomenon.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Alternative medicine is a multi billion dollar industry. It is pretty ignorent (especially for an American) to say that there isn't a need (demand) for it.

As are tobacco, herion and daytime TV. Just because there is a demand for something, that does not make it worthy or acceptable.

 

[EternalUniverse]

Hello Aster. I have read several of your threads. You seem to be honest and intelligent - I wouldn't post a reply otherwise. Perhaps I can write something that you may find enlightening.

The question may not be one of science, but one that involves logic and rationality (although these concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Many discussions have been clouded by bringing up the notion of "scientific evidence" when the real issue involves the techniques of reasoning (and Randi is not necessarily immune to this "cloudiness"). The rules of logic and rationality lie at the base of this debate, occurring before any mention of science should be evoked. What is at stake is not if your claim of the supernatural is testable by science, but whether or not you are justified in having your claim (that you did something supernatural) in the first place. Remember, I am not doubting that you painted the painting before the events in question, just the interpretation of its significance. I assume that you are logical, and thus I am able to communicate with you (as you coming on here posting implicitly states that you are trying to make a reasoned claim of something). Without this basic agreement that we will be logical, communication would not be possible.

One method of reasoning involves abduction, or inference to the best conclusion (I think Thaiboxerken pointed out this strategy before). Given a certain number of premises, what would be the best conclusion that explains them? If the claim (and correct me if I am incorrect) is that you painted something that predicted the future, then there are at least two possibilities. One is that the painting predicted the event of your brother, and thus something supernatural may be going on. However, I submit that the explanation that the event represents a "coincidence", is a better explanation.
In a previous post, you attempted to answer the possiblility of coincidence, saying that "People will tell you, it's a coïncidence. And you know, from the heart of the experience, it is not". I ask you think about this more.

I'm sure you've heard of Occam's Razor, better thought of as a tool of rationality than a concept co-opted by science. There is a reason why it is used - before we muddle ourselves up with comlicated matters, we should see if the more simpler matters are correctly to begin with. So let's start with the less complicated conclusion, that what happened is a "coincidence".

First of all, you mention, at least twice, that you do not believe in coincidences, but in "synchronicity" - please define this term. Much have been said by the good posters about the luck factor in showing that what you deem to be supernatural is a mere coincidence. Perhaps I can give a different spin of the matter that you find effective. We are creatures of interpretation. Out of the seemingly infinite experiences and stimuli in our lives, we deem certain events as more significant than others. For example, many people focus on the "hits" rather than the "misses" of the cold readers. Also, one ostensible precognitive dream is deemed as paranormal by some, even in light of the thousands of mundane dreams experienced. In both cases, the number of cases involved makes it very likely that "hits" will occur - but the point is that they aren't "hits" whatsoever, just lucky guesses based on the volume of attempts. The central problem is not viewing things in context. Out of the myriad experiences, why do you deem the connection between the painting and the events of your brother as significant? I would submit that the connection, and I hope that you think about this deeply, is not supernatural, but psychological and emotional. Because of the psychological and emotional factors that makes you want to believe that a supernatural event has occurred, it is not surprising that you hold the position that you do.

Just think - rationally, would there be better explanations rather than the supernatural that can be evoked to explain the seeming connection between the art and the events of your brother? Firstly, the connection was made after the fact. You realized that the painting predicted the events of your brother after/during the burial. It is certainly possible that some magical power caused you to paint the picture without you knowing, only to reveal its significance afterwards. However, lost in the debate, is not what is possible, but what is the best explanation of the events in question.

Also, think of how much room for interpretation there is for the supposed similarities between the events in question. For one, and correct me if I am wrong, the cemetery scence is only a smaller portion of the whole picture. Why would the prediction manifest itself as a small part of the entire painting? I submit that it is an effort to justify and interpret, after the fact, the belief that you hold before considering and weighing the possible explanations. Whatever you believe the significance is of the painting, the fact remains that the significance must be interpreted. Why must an interpretation of significance be needed in the first place?

It is true that science is probably not the tool to use if you want to PROVE your claims (science's aim is to disprove, after all). However, I believe that you are trying to figure out a method that transcends science, if you will. However, to do this is to abandon certain assumptions, involving not only the abandonment of concepts such as falsification, causality, time and space, but the roots of rationality and logic as well.

cheers.

 

[Aster]

As are tobacco, herion and daytime TV. Just because there is a demand for something, that does not make it worthy or acceptable.

There ís a need, a demand, period, it's not relevant to judge the worthyness of these things. The demand for alternative medical practice does not need to be proven, it's in plain view and science is interested. But I hear you. Now I'll have to prove that alternative medicine is worthy or acceptable. I wonder how skeptics view natural medicine practices like tribal medicine or native american practices. What will happen to you when you suddenly come down with an infection in the middle of the rainforest. A shaman tells you to eat this weird looking root, yet you say: no way! it's not scientifically proven to be effective ??

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Powa]

I wonder how skeptics view natural medicine practices like tribal medicine or native american practices. What will happen to you when you suddenly come down with an infection in the middle of the rainforest. A shaman tells you to eat this weird looking root, yet you say: no way! it's not scientifically proven to be effective ??

Well, people have tried all sorts of things trying to cure themselves since the begining of mankind. So through experimentation they discovered many effective cures. I'm not saying that a weird looking root a shaman offers you is going to cure you, but you have a much better chance with a shaman than, say, a homeopath. Besides, modern medicine understands native cures and their effectiveness quite well. On the other hand there is NO evidence to support effectiveness of any form of "alternative medicine". That's the only reason why "alternative medicine" remains alternative, otherwise it would just be incorporated into the existing (working) medicine.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not that all people have a religion, rather a natural base for religious/spiritual belief. Many people who say they're not religious do say they believe in 'something'. Skeptics, I assume, do not believe in anything, unless proven by science ?

Yes, many people that don't claim a religion still believe in gods and spirits and other nonsense. Skeptics are simply people that don't believe in such things unless they are evident. You keep trying to insult people here by saying we have a religious need to not believe. It has nothing to do with religion or a need, it's simply the rational way of viewing life.

There ís a need, a demand, period, it's not relevant to judge the worthyness of these things.

There is a demand for beer. Does this mean the beer is good for you?

I wonder how skeptics view natural medicine practices like tribal medicine or native american practices. What will happen to you when you suddenly come down with an infection in the middle of the rainforest. A shaman tells you to eat this weird looking root, yet you say: no way! it's not scientifically proven to be effective ??

Some tribal medicines work, some don't. If my infection is not life threatening or won't maim me for life, I would decline the shaman's treatment. If I realize that I would die without treatment, and no modern medicine clinics or treatment is available, I would defer to the shaman and take my chances. However, since I would die without treatment.... if he poisons me, it's no big deal, I would've died anyway.

If you can get the shaman to prove efficacy of his treatment using science, then I wouldn't have to wonder if his root will heal or harm.

Much of modern medicine comes from tribal methods. Science has just figured out what really works and what doesn't. What hasn't been proven effective stays in the "alternative" category.

 

[Aster]

The BoyPaj wrote : As are tobacco, herion and daytime TV. Just because there is a demand for something, that does not make it worthy or acceptable.

I wrote : There ís a need, a demand, period, it's not relevant to judge the worthyness of these things.

You wrote : There is a demand for beer. Does this mean the beer is good for you?

I write : There ís a need, a demand, period, it's not relevant to judge the worthyness of these things.

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

On the other hand there is NO evidence to support effectiveness of any form of "alternative medicine". That's the only reason why "alternative medicine" remains alternative, otherwise it would just be incorporated into the existing (working) medicine.

That's simply not true. It surely doesn't count for my profession anyway. But for example eastern medicine is often considered alternative medicine in the west. Never mind that in China acupuncture is a science based on the knowledge of thousands of years. Its component Chi however is defined as being undetectable by western science. So, does that mean that Chi, Ki, Reiki, Orgon, Ka or Prana and what have we, don't exist and that all cultural knowledge based on life energies are simply based on medical charlatanism ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Aster]

Much of modern medicine comes from tribal methods. Science has just figured out what really works and what doesn't. What hasn't been proven effective stays in the "alternative" category.

Exactly. These tribal methods existed long before science figured out that they worked. Then why merely be on a path to hunt ducks and insult alternative ways by calling them charlatanism without also respecting the practices and methods of people who deserve it ?

Rgds.,
Aster.

 

[Powa]

But for example eastern medicine is often considered alternative medicine in the west. Never mind that in China acupuncture is a science based on the knowledge of thousands of years. Its component Chi however is defined as being undetectable by western science. So, does that mean that Chi, Ki, Reiki, Orgon, Ka or Prana and what have we, don't exist and that all cultural knowledge based on life energies are simply based on medical charlatanism?

Charlatanism or delusion. But you really should understand one thing. There's only one medicine. That which is proven to work. Acupuncture isn't proven to work. Homeopathy neither. Aromatherapy? No. And I could go on and on. Why do you think acupuncture is rejected by medical science? Could it be because it doesn't work? If the efects of "alternative medicine" are so evident it should be a piece of cake to prove it and add it to existing medical science.