Psychosomatic diseases?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2012, 09:12 AM
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(13-06-2012 04:54 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ... I am only sure that my grandmother's cancer developed according to her her emotional state, as observed on her behavior.
Why are you sure? You have no evidence, no mechanism, not alternative hypothesis.

Your conjectures would be far more interesting if you used the methods of science. Since you consistently refuse to do so, your ideas are just blather. But your scientific ignorance is two-fold: there is so much you don't know and there is so much that you avow that just isn't so.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2012, 09:16 AM
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(13-06-2012 07:51 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I'm more on Lumi's side. I have nominated him to do my woo-like thinking for me so I don't have to; that way I can make pretend I'm all rational and shit. Big Grin

We all know that science doesn't have all the answers. Where there is some disagreement is where science should start asking questions.
That is precisely where science does ask the questions. That is science. Science is the search for answers.

'Woo' is coming up with answers without credible evidence, just making shit up - like chakras.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2012 04:21 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(13-06-2012 08:13 AM)kim Wrote:  However, I scanned both of those links...and found nary a chakra betwixt them.
Chakras are main organs of etheric body. There are methods to measure them. Although when skeptics looks at it, they think "oh, colourful pictures that can mean anything, no big deal". They're also connected to major endocrine glands and therefore important for health. The chakras seem to create an even more direct link between our thought and health, by directly influencing nerve and endocrine system.
I recommend to read through this discussion, how skeptics interpret the experience of "energy". There are no conclusions, but I'd be able to do just as well in such a "test", if not better. All I need is a skeptic's personal presence, plus maybe a few simple contraptions to make it blind, random and testable.

(13-06-2012 08:13 AM)kim Wrote:  Nor was there mention of The Scorpio body region... whatever the fuck that is. Dodgy
I was also unable to find where it explained how, if someone found it hard to forgive another who wronged him, or if it was difficult for him to let go of either emotional grudges or material things in particular... how that would fit better if the ailment was a cancer of lower colon.
Shortly said, it's woo. Longly said, my people theoretize that there is a higher part of personality that attempts to use a symbolical language to communicate with us. Some of the health problems are manifested according to certain symbolics, in this case, lower colon is an organ that symbolizes letting go of things. Specially material possessions. The idea first came from traditional astrology, hence Scorpio, the most naughty sign and associated bodily area. So we can try to look at the problematic organ, look it up in a book and seriously question ourselves if for example the higheer self is telling me if that admirable gourmet expertise of mine isn't actually a glorified decadence and gluttony. (the lower jaw and throat problems - the Taurus area)

(13-06-2012 08:13 AM)kim Wrote:  Sorry, and maybe I am missing some technical terms in translation so, if it makes one happy to have the operating room full of balloons during a surgery, by all means do it. If the operation is successful I'll be more than willing to say, "Hey, those balloons sure helped lighten the load." No harm, no foul.

But if the patient dies, are you willing to negate follow up research by saying, "Well, this guy was just unable to forgive his wife for flirting." In that reality, we all know the real reason the patient dies: it's the will of the bBalloons. No
Surgery is like buying the patient more time. If we live our life consciously and deal with problems before they grow over our head, it usually shouldn't come to that. But when it does, the classical medicine is a damn useful thing, I must say. The disease is a result of general messiness of the current world situation, the way we're evolved as a biologic species, personal consciousness and maybe many other factors, interesting but unnecessary to elaborate.
On the other hand, diseases as such are not a sacred tool of God's or karmic punishment, we're fully entitled as a race to wipe them out and make health a standard. God will have to find some other flyswatter Tongue

(13-06-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why are you sure? You have no evidence, no mechanism, not alternative hypothesis.
Experience. Years and years of experience, in various circumstances that show what is relevant and reliable and what isn't. I learned to compensate for biases, wishful thinking and so on. I learned to dismiss the expected and expect nothing, just welcome the unexpected phenomena, uncontaminated by a previous knowledge or desire.
I don't have a mechanism, but I have a heuristic knowledge. And I don't have enough imagination to suggest an alternative hypothesis, not for anything so big. If anything comes even close, like the multifold String theory, then it seems to me like a different and equally valid point of view.

(13-06-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your conjectures would be far more interesting if you used the methods of science. Since you consistently refuse to do so, your ideas are just blather. But your scientific ignorance is two-fold: there is so much you don't know and there is so much that you avow that just isn't so.
I'm just one guy. I do what I can, where I can, when I can, with what I have. I don't have the power of the quaternary sector of economy to satisfy modest demands of people like you. For example, just to conduct a trustworthy experiment I'd need a skeptic make sure the blind experiment stays blind. And I don't know of such a person. It's all believers and practitioners around here.

You're used to being advanced in all scientific areas, so you don't understand that in this particular area we're primitive, like Galvani with frog legs or Archimedes with a piece of amber. So you dismiss the crazy tales of people who make frog legs move or rub gems with a fox tail to give them power. Clearly a cult of insane frog and fox worshippers... Nope, I just know that things are happening but not why and how in terms that would make sense to you. I am highly ignorant and highly experienced at the same time.

You seem to me like a tourist demanding electricity and hot bath in the middle of Amazon jungle. Which is something we'd all want, but you must realize this is a primitive frontier situation and it needs a lot of fieldwork to estabilish the most basic terms of what is, isn't, may be and may not be. Not even the practitioners themselves can be trusted to know what's going on. Either they don't know the proper scientific terms, or maybe the science does not have these terms yet. So we can't take just any hypothesis of theirs and test it or dismiss it. They can't even carry their own burden of proof! I know in science you're used to stand on shoulders of giants, but there be no giants, just dragons and lions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2012, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2012 07:54 PM by Chas.)
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(14-06-2012 01:24 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-06-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why are you sure? You have no evidence, no mechanism, not alternative hypothesis.
Experience. Years and years of experience, in various circumstances that show what is relevant and reliable and what isn't. I learned to compensate for biases, wishful thinking and so on. I learned to dismiss the expected and expect nothing, just welcome the unexpected phenomena, uncontaminated by a previous knowledge or desire.
I don't have a mechanism, but I have a heuristic knowledge. And I don't have enough imagination to suggest an alternative hypothesis, not for anything so big. If anything comes even close, like the multifold String theory, then it seems to me like a different and equally valid point of view.

(13-06-2012 09:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your conjectures would be far more interesting if you used the methods of science. Since you consistently refuse to do so, your ideas are just blather. But your scientific ignorance is two-fold: there is so much you don't know and there is so much that you avow that just isn't so.
I'm just one guy. I do what I can, where I can, when I can, with what I have. I don't have the power of the quaternary sector of economy to satisfy modest demands of people like you. For example, just to conduct a trustworthy experiment I'd need a skeptic make sure the blind experiment stays blind. And I don't know of such a person. It's all believers and practitioners around here.

You're used to being advanced in all scientific areas, so you don't understand that in this particular area we're primitive, like Galvani with frog legs or Archimedes with a piece of amber. So you dismiss the crazy tales of people who make frog legs move or rub gems with a fox tail to give them power. Clearly a cult of insane frog and fox worshippers... Nope, I just know that things are happening but not why and how in terms that would make sense to you. I am highly ignorant and highly experienced at the same time.

You seem to me like a tourist demanding electricity and hot bath in the middle of Amazon jungle. Which is something we'd all want, but you must realize this is a primitive frontier situation and it needs a lot of fieldwork to estabilish the most basic terms of what is, isn't, may be and may not be. Not even the practitioners themselves can be trusted to know what's going on. Either they don't know the proper scientific terms, or maybe the science does not have these terms yet. So we can't take just any hypothesis of theirs and test it or dismiss it. They can't even carry their own burden of proof! I know in science you're used to stand on shoulders of giants, but there be no giants, just dragons and lions.
You have made my point: you seem not to understand the scientific method. It's not about equipment, or facilities, or money. It's about thinking. It's about hypotheses. It's about designing experiments.

Is there something to be tested? How do we test for its presence or effects? If we assume it doesn't exist, is there anything to be explained? And so on.

Without the methodology, all you have is stories. My intent here is not to be harsh but to help. You have some interesting ideas and clearly have some passion for them. But without evidence, it is all for naught.

From Wikipedia:
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-06-2012, 02:27 AM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2012 02:31 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(14-06-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have made my point: you seem not to understand the scientific method. It's not about equipment, or facilities, or money. It's about thinking. It's about hypotheses. It's about designing experiments.
Maybe I should explain the mentality of practitioners to you. They learn as they work and earn a coin or two (as opposed to study in a controlled environment, earning nothing) and take a personal evidence as... an evidence (as opposed to objective evidence that convinces even people who weren't there). They are also afraid that studying the phenomena would stop their practice and income. There are prejudices against overly poking into things, the basic esoteric law says that energy follows thought, so a critical thought might stop it all. Others see their abilities as not theirs, only loaned by a higher power for work (or even for a particular task only, like a software license) and not to be reverse-engineered. Others may have paranoid or ethical inhibitions from giving too much knowledge to science that might be misused for making weapons or someone's selfish profit. Hell, even I somewhat lean to some of these opinions. I'm only so open because my sensitivity is ever-present and doesn't magically switch off in skeptic's presence. But all these astral mediums out there are unstable and must be terribly stage-frightened.

In such circumstances it is lucky that there is a scientific work of people like James DeMeo, Harry Oldfield, Miroslav Provod or the classic Wilhelm Reich. I believe there are journals and conferences of such scientists, but for some reason they don't get mentioned in journals that you approve of. Some local older skeptics think that "if it ain't Nature, it ain't science." And I can't blame them, they can't go over the research as experts, so they need to believe in a higher authority to do the choosing and judging for them. Which concentrates a great power in hands of journal editors. But I hope this water journal and other journals would give you enough scientists' names and mentioned experiments to make you treat this field seriously.

(14-06-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Is there something to be tested? How do we test for its presence or effects? If we assume it doesn't exist, is there anything to be explained? And so on.

Without the methodology, all you have is stories. My intent here is not to be harsh but to help. You have some interesting ideas and clearly have some passion for them. But without evidence, it is all for naught.
Yes, at the very least there is the whole fairly standard theory of what I call etheric body, composed of meridians with special points, seven greater vortexes and who knows how many lesser ones. It's measurable electrically, optically and by sensitive people. This is the most basic and most measurable thing on which all the woo world can agree. Most agree that there must be a whole material (and highly energetic) world that this etheric body is a part of. Most popular guess is, that this world represents our planetary share of dark matter, perhaps as vital as our solid biosphere.

But still something tells me we need a preliminary study. What is it called when scientists study a new field without making a judgement about it? I believe scientists need to take it in first, because practitioners can't be trusted with conducting the tests by themselves and scientists neither, as long as they stay on the outside.
I always remember a warning example, when scientists made an arrangement to test water dowsing, they made many unjustified assumptions that made it impossible and dowsers did not have a theoretic knowledge to tell them why it's no good at all. It's not the "you must first believe" argument, it's just that without understanding the often counter-intuitive ether dynamics nobody can suggest a proper methodology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2012, 05:23 PM
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(16-06-2012 02:27 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(14-06-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have made my point: you seem not to understand the scientific method. It's not about equipment, or facilities, or money. It's about thinking. It's about hypotheses. It's about designing experiments.
Maybe I should explain the mentality of practitioners to you. They learn as they work and earn a coin or two (as opposed to study in a controlled environment, earning nothing) and take a personal evidence as... an evidence (as opposed to objective evidence that convinces even people who weren't there). They are also afraid that studying the phenomena would stop their practice and income. There are prejudices against overly poking into things, the basic esoteric law says that energy follows thought, so a critical thought might stop it all. Others see their abilities as not theirs, only loaned by a higher power for work (or even for a particular task only, like a software license) and not to be reverse-engineered. Others may have paranoid or ethical inhibitions from giving too much knowledge to science that might be misused for making weapons or someone's selfish profit. Hell, even I somewhat lean to some of these opinions. I'm only so open because my sensitivity is ever-present and doesn't magically switch off in skeptic's presence. But all these astral mediums out there are unstable and must be terribly stage-frightened.

In such circumstances it is lucky that there is a scientific work of people like James DeMeo, Harry Oldfield, Miroslav Provod or the classic Wilhelm Reich. I believe there are journals and conferences of such scientists, but for some reason they don't get mentioned in journals that you approve of. Some local older skeptics think that "if it ain't Nature, it ain't science." And I can't blame them, they can't go over the research as experts, so they need to believe in a higher authority to do the choosing and judging for them. Which concentrates a great power in hands of journal editors. But I hope this water journal and other journals would give you enough scientists' names and mentioned experiments to make you treat this field seriously.

(14-06-2012 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Is there something to be tested? How do we test for its presence or effects? If we assume it doesn't exist, is there anything to be explained? And so on.

Without the methodology, all you have is stories. My intent here is not to be harsh but to help. You have some interesting ideas and clearly have some passion for them. But without evidence, it is all for naught.
Yes, at the very least there is the whole fairly standard theory of what I call etheric body, composed of meridians with special points, seven greater vortexes and who knows how many lesser ones. It's measurable electrically, optically and by sensitive people. This is the most basic and most measurable thing on which all the woo world can agree. Most agree that there must be a whole material (and highly energetic) world that this etheric body is a part of. Most popular guess is, that this world represents our planetary share of dark matter, perhaps as vital as our solid biosphere.

But still something tells me we need a preliminary study. What is it called when scientists study a new field without making a judgement about it? I believe scientists need to take it in first, because practitioners can't be trusted with conducting the tests by themselves and scientists neither, as long as they stay on the outside.
I always remember a warning example, when scientists made an arrangement to test water dowsing, they made many unjustified assumptions that made it impossible and dowsers did not have a theoretic knowledge to tell them why it's no good at all. It's not the "you must first believe" argument, it's just that without understanding the often counter-intuitive ether dynamics nobody can suggest a proper methodology.
Where are you (in the world) that there are a lot of 'etheric practitioners'?

Quote:In such circumstances it is lucky that there is a scientific work of
people like James DeMeo, Harry Oldfield, Miroslav Provod or the classic
Wilhelm Reich.
I would disagree that these people are scientists qualified to research the physical universe. For instance, DeMeo is a sociologist. If these things you sense exist, then they are part of reality, part of the physical universe.

These people don't get published in science journals because what they do is so sloppy that it is not science. First, they have to show that something to be studied exists - they have not accomplished this any more successfully than the psi 'researchers' have.

Please don't go all 'conspiracy' on this. Many (all?) currently accepted scientific theories were once outsiders until sufficient evidence was established. All science is tentative, all science is models of reality. When evidence arises that challenges a model, the evidence is validated or invalidated by others; many, many others. Theories that are no longer supportable are chucked out, new theories replace them.

The difference between science and pseudo-science is that science readily tosses away theories that don't work, while pseudo-sciences cling to beliefs in the absence of evidence. There is no evidence for etheric bodies or chakras or orgone - these are pseudo-science.

Bring some evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-06-2012, 06:06 PM
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
Sadcryface
Take the crazy pill.

Ohmy
take the crazy pill.


Shocking
take the crazy pill.
That's right... everything will be juuuuust fine.

Come on Chas... you can always sleep off the insanity hangover later. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
17-06-2012, 06:33 AM
RE: Psychosomatic diseases?
(16-06-2012 06:06 PM)kim Wrote:  Sadcryface
Take the crazy pill.

Ohmy
take the crazy pill.


Shocking
take the crazy pill.
That's right... everything will be juuuuust fine.

Come on Chas... you can always sleep off the insanity hangover later. Wink
I've tried, but the ensuing nausea makes me barf my guts up along with the pill. Weeping

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: