Calling all professional Dousers, Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers

I want to conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines. Basically, its my belief that if you are making money for your services and your are not marketing them as entertainment then you should be willing to have it tested under controlled conditions. If you are unwilling do that why ? For comparison, would you be willing to take your car to a mechanic or any other professional practicioner who refused to have their work verified ? If interested please reply, if not interested please tell me why.

I'm not any of those things, but the way you have worded your post would not attract any takers, I expect.

Rather than expressing sincere scientific interest, you appear more antagonistic and adversarial.

I imagine many genuine practitIoners of those arts would be eager to have their talents measured scientifically so far as they are measurable (and there have been many such studies) but not by someone who has already suggested, somewhat belligerently that s(he already believes they are a bunch of unwilling, overvalued frauds.

You are of course entitled to your opinion of these practices, and are certainly not obliged to make use of them. I don't see the purpose in baiting a community of people with a derisive commentary on their chosen professions, thinly veiled as a scientific challenge.

Its tragically amusing how immediately hostile and insulting people get when you state (no matter how matter of factly) a desire to have it tested. Whatever vast and erroneous interpretation of my tone you want to make..the fact is, if you are charging $$ for it and not calling it entertainment than you should be comfortable with having it tested. After all, if you are that confident that such claims are real, then using a non-subjective test would be desirable validation. If you think that such disciplines are outside of scientific scrutiny then don't package them as being rational disciplines. (Package them as entertainment or some kind of performance art).

Malou- are you assuming I haven't been well versed in psychic studies ? Your post seemed incredibly assumptive..you really don't know what my background is.The biggest skeptics (even ones more skeptical than me) started out believing and being immersed in the disciplines. Malou..what do you know about the Scientific Method ? It definitely applies here.

Want a more Humanistic analogy ? Ok..since we are dealing with human interaction why not compare it counseling or psychology ? Would you be willing to pay an exhorbitant fee to consult one of these disciplines if there is no evidence that they work ? (Marriage counselors tend to have the least success BTW).

Leela8- Wow ! There are so many misquotes and vindictive claims I don't forsee any rational logical dialogue with you. The 'eagerness' of genuinely talented professionals to be tested should be independent of my personal opinion and only dependent on the test being fair and objective. Yes, there have been many studies and I challenge you to come up with one valid study that verifies the claims made by these disciplines. NOT the same thing as saying that things like Psychic powers are false but providing plenty of evidence that making money peddling these claims deserves skepticism.

BTW My personal belief is that there are many things beyond what current Science can explain and there are things of extreme value that aren't Science. I am skeptical (which is very healthy and rational) about the claims I want to test but I absolutely will alter my skepticism based on rational, objective testing results.

The things I've said are only 'baiting' if you are insecure about your beliefs in these claims. My motivation is to apply the Scientific Method to something real.

@taishon: Are you setting up an actual experiment and compensating people (dowsers, psychics) for their time? What's your experimental design? Has it been approved by a Human Subject panel? (Psychics are humans.) What's your level of funding?

What might be more fun for you is to take some (more? different?) dowsing or psychic training and get a feel for how it works, then use that to inform your experimental design. Or go to a dowsing conference - you'll see lots of testing and challenges going on.

Incidentally, I have never asked to have my mechanic's work "verified" - it's usually really easy to tell (car runs smoothly, I can examine the parts that were removed), and he's honest about things that stump him. Similarly, when I do spiritual work it's usually really easy to tell if it was successful (pain level reduced, anxiety gone), and I'm honest with my clients about things that stump me.

(Well, I can think of mechanical work I've had done at certain dealerships that *should* have been "verified"!)

PS: I see others have already replied, and you've responded. So, what has been your training and experience?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I want to conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines. Basically, its my belief that if you are making money for your services and your are not marketing them as entertainment then you should be willing to have it tested under controlled conditions. If you are unwilling do that why ? For comparison, would you be willing to take your car to a mechanic or any other professional practicioner who refused to have their work verified ? If interested please reply, if not interested please tell me why.

---

First off, thank you for not replying in a hostile or irrational manner..that gets old even if it is irritatingly amusing. To answer your first paragraph;

1. Absolutely no compensation or reimbursement though, if the data indicate validity then you will get a die hard testimonial from me and, by association, and the influence of many respected individuals. Why is compensation necessary ? I can think of several professional positions I have held where I demonstrated my skill for free. In fact, I think compensation might hinder the validity in minor ways.

2. Taking classes and learning the disciplines would make the procedure less valid. It is better that I know less about how it is theoretically supposed to work. What is important is that I know the Scientific Method well. Human subject panel is irrelevant unless I am going to publish a paper in Scientific American or some such. The experimental design would have to be agreed on by me and the subject being tested and would have to be based on sound double-blind science which is pretty independent of discipline and well-practiced. Basically, I would do the following;

1. Ask the subject what they definitely claim they are able to do
2. Decide if their claims have an actual false test (Scientists never truly prove things right under all conditions). If I get one controlled, valid positive result that can only be explained by some kind of Psychic explanation you will get a lifelong devotee and advocate.
3. If the claims have no false test (ie- you couch the discipline in enough nebulous and fuzzy terminology or conditions that it can't be tested using the Scientific Method) then I can't test it and either (1) It is not science but Psuedoscientific belief or something that Science has not yet evolved to measure or verify.

I don't doubt that many Psychics do good. A client will feel more positive about their life, get help grieving etc but that feeling often breaks down with reality or true motivations (selfishness) get buried behind fuzziness and denial. If you have a good track record of making your clients needs met/life better over the long term with no net rebounding serious negatives, then more power to you. Keep in mind that, falsely believing that a naked king is clothed in beautiful robes is self-denial and only has the appearance of something good.

I am not out to discredit those who truly desire to help others, have a good track record comparable to their financial gains, and whose clients don't suffer because of their practice. I do want to discredit those who make money by making claims they don't deliver, practice psychological manipulation for personal gain (ie- dishonest salesmanship) etc etc and those that outright swindle or have a high failure rate (ie- bad record tracking abducted children after charging the terrified parents gobs of cash etc). I AM keenly interested in seeing any positive results that hold up under scientific scrutiny.

If you are really skilled at using Psuedoscience techniques (Astrology, Dousing etc) to help clients and you don't make a bunch of false claims (eg "I am not sure why this works and I don't know if its truly some time of mysterious energy phenom but it seems to really work.") then I wouldn't try to discredit you.

Only in the non-science world do you get so much credit for having a high failure %. Example- lets say you are making psychic predictions (whether its palm reading, fortune telling etc etc), and only one out 10 are really accurate, people will call you amazing because you have a non-skeptical audience who seeks you out. Nostradamus was amazing, not because he got so much right but because he made so incredibly many bad predictions only a few of which were accurate, and got so much post-humous credit. Imagine the weather report being right only 10% of the time (national weather report averages are spot on at least 80% and we still complain constantly).

My qualifications- lets just say I have a firm grounding in the Scientific Method. Whether I am an authorized authority (I am- I have been a published science researcher) is irrelevant and I fully willing to allow any results to be peer reviewed (by scientists and non-scientists alike) What really matters is whether we can agree on a controlled experiment that would qualify as valid by the very well developed protocals of Science. I am sure that I can come up with Science 'experts' that you may consider more qualified than me to give their time freely to oversee any experiment. In any case, I would use the results mainly for the education of my students rather than some nationally or internationally published periodical.

This is what is so incredible different between science (at least good science) and just about any other discipline. A good scientist, when issued this challenge would say "yes..please test my claims over and over and over again..I want them to be verified before I publish/market/make promises etc" (yes there are bad scientists out there that don't do that but far rarer than any other human endeavor).

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by stuartdole:

@taishon: Are you setting up an actual experiment and compensating people (dowsers, psychics) for their time? What's your experimental design? Has it been approved by a Human Subject panel? (Psychics are humans.) What's your level of funding?

What might be more fun for you is to take some (more? different?) dowsing or psychic training and get a feel for how it works, then use that to inform your experimental design. Or go to a dowsing conference - you'll see lots of testing and challenges going on.

Incidentally, I have never asked to have my mechanic's work "verified" - it's usually really easy to tell (car runs smoothly, I can examine the parts that were removed), and he's honest about things that stump him. Similarly, when I do spiritual work it's usually really easy to tell if it was successful (pain level reduced, anxiety gone), and I'm honest with my clients about things that stump me.

(Well, I can think of mechanical work I've had done at certain dealerships that *should* have been "verified"!)

PS: I see others have already replied, and you've responded. So, what has been your training and experience?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I want to conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines. Basically, its my belief that if you are making money for your services and your are not marketing them as entertainment then you should be willing to have it tested under controlled conditions. If you are unwilling do that why ? For comparison, would you be willing to take your car to a mechanic or any other professional practicioner who refused to have their work verified ? If interested please reply, if not interested please tell me why.

---

I am an energy healer. I may be willing to submit to your tests, however I am wondering about the validity of your tests. I can refer you to 10 people who have come to me for various ailments in the last month that will tell you they felt partial or complete relief of their symtoms and a heightened sense of well being. How do you substantiate that with your "test"?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sonomawineandroses:

I am an energy healer. I may be willing to submit to your tests, however I am wondering about the validity of your tests. I can refer you to 10 people who have come to me for various ailments in the last month that will tell you they felt partial or complete relief of their symptoms and a heightened sense of well being. How do you substantiate that with your "test"?

---

Thank you for this response. Whether we can test what you claim depends on what you claim. If you are not using drugs, specific physical therapies, psychological protocols do you claim that what you do involves manipulations of physical energies ? Do you claim that it is far more than a placebo effect ? I would need to know exactly how you do what you do and what you claim is the actual mechanism happening. Eye witness testimony is not enough and can be easily explained by phenomena other than some kind of psychic energy manipulation.

I am really looking for a specific physical test that, if positive results are indicated, would be strong evidence of causes that cannot be explained by conventional science and rational (ie- psychic energy or such). For example, if you claim that you have a patient with a certain disease or condition (cancer, rash etc) who claims that they are physically doing better after being your patient then, theoretically, we could put cultures of the disease (cancer cells etc) in test tubes and have you do energy healing on the test tubes. If we get positive results that are way beyond statistical variation, then the evidence is very excitingly positive in your favor. If you claim you need the human vessel (patient) then there would be not specific isolated test and it wouldn't be double blind BUT you could examine patient charts to see if the disease/physical condition dramatically improves in the same time period they have been your client.

Note that it can't be a general condition such as back pain which can easily be explained as a placebo effect. It has to be something objectively measurable (dramatically higher T cell counts in patients etc). To use actual patients in a testimony would be a much bigger project requiring legalities etc.

As a side note, my understanding of energy healing is that, in order for it to work, the healer must have a genuine desire to and empathy with the patient (this varies from traditional medicine where the doctor/nurse can be incredibly selfish and still prescribe treatments that work). Do you offer your services, sometimes, for free to needy clients who can't afford it ? If not, why not ? Many doctors and nurses volunteer their time for free as well as pay.

Thank you for your consideration.

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what a "douser" is? Thank you!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by natalie:

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what a "douser" is? Thank you!

---

Historically dousing most often used to locate water in underground aquifer. The practitioner uses a rod held loosely in the hand the movement of which indicates the presence of water.

You seem to be very "stuck" in the "scientific method." And, you seem to be unwilling to talk about your credentials (any one can get published these days - this does not a legitimate "researcher" make). It seems that you are very angry about people charging for what they talk about being able to do. If you had a bad experience then part of that fault lies with you - and not doing your homework - thoroughly checking out (as one would a surgeon or mechanic) the reputation of the practitioner

There are problems with the scientific method that are well recognized by people who are trying to study non-scientific practices (see Radin, D; Entangled Minds for example) yet many of these practices - particularly in the "energy healers" category have been accepted by the general scientific community. Accupuncture being one of the best known.

How many medical doctors have gone and taken a weekend course (instead of the 3 year program) so they could "offer" this service to their patients because the patients are demanding and paying for this service? Does "Western Medicine" meet your criteria for testing? How about all of the "medicines" that have been dispensed by "doctors" and done ridiculous amounts of harm....

Unless you are going to submit to a human subjects approval process, and unless you are going to be very clear about your methods and make your research design public - at least to potential subjects and to a human subjects committee, no one should submit to your proposal.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SusanC:

You seem to be very "stuck" in the "scientific method." And, you seem to be unwilling to talk about your credentials (any one can get published these days - this does not a legitimate "researcher" make). It seems that you are very angry about people charging for what they talk about being able to do. If you had a bad experience then part of that fault lies with you - and not doing your homework - thoroughly checking out (as one would a surgeon or mechanic) the reputation of the practitioner

There are problems with the scientific method that are well recognized by people who are trying to study non-scientific practices (see Radin, D; Entangled Minds for example) yet many of these practices - particularly in the "energy healers" category have been accepted by the general scientific community. Accupuncture being one of the best known.

How many medical doctors have gone and taken a weekend course (instead of the 3 year program) so they could "offer" this service to their patients because the patients are demanding and paying for this service? Does "Western Medicine" meet your criteria for testing? How about all of the "medicines" that have been dispensed by "doctors" and done ridiculous amounts of harm....

Unless you are going to submit to a human subjects approval process, and unless you are going to be very clear about your methods and make your research design public - at least to potential subjects and to a human subjects committee, no one should submit to your proposal.

---

There are so many fallacies of logic and bad assumptions in your post that I am not sure its productive to respond. Essential you are using starting to use Ad Hominen and irrelevant arguments to conclude that what I am proposing is not valid.

I think I will only respond to three things;

1. Energy Healing (if you define as the manipulation of 'energy fields' at a distance) is NOT accepted as being valid by the 'general science community'. There have been Many controlled studies done and the results have shown plenty of evidence that Energy Healing produces no more statistical response than traditional compassionate care methods (where the patient gets some response explained by psychological comfort being attended to by other people). There is plenty of Bad Science being conducted in the Medical community (remote prayer studies for example) and there are plenty of bad and erroneous practices being conducted by the medical community but thats not what I am testing here. Other practices that can be put into the energy healing category have shown promise but none of them have ruled out fairly conventional Scientific explanations. There was a large study done on Chi Gung that showed long-term praticioners with AIDS had higher T-cell counts and survival rates than non practicioners (wish I knew how to spell better :0). That does not automatically mean some kind of nebulous psychic energy phenomena. It does imply that Chi Gung, like a number of meditative personal physical practices works well. I have done Tai Chi, Yoga etc and I can attest that they do wonders that Trad Medicine doesn't seem able to do well. That is nothing close to the idea of using 'action at a distance' energy manipulation.

2. I cannot be clear about how I am going to conduct the experiment until I know exactly what a subject claims they can do and what they claim as their methods. There are no problems with conducting the SM on non-scientific claims because there is no SM way of testing them. For example, I can test to see if dousing can find things but I cannot test the claim that it finds things because of psychic energy because that is truly beyond science. What IS important is that we use correct and valid SM protocals that the subject and I can agree too. There are plenty of people who have plenty of credentials who practice bad science. I am not be overly open about my background because I really believe any personal information is just an excuse for Ad Hominen attacks and I get really tired and disgusted with them. Ultimately, regardless of my credentials, peer review would easily validate or dispute whether I would be using correct methods and whether the results would be valid.

3. I am not 'stuck' on the SM in my life as a whole..I am stuck on it for the purpose of testing the title lines claims. I think, so far, I've gotten one reasonable, rational response to my original post which implies, to me, that there really is a wall of irrational defensiveness with regard to these professions. I very much want to hold people accountable for charging for their services (as I have been held accountable for making money for my services...I actually quit a job because I was making a lot of money for doing something that my clients should have been able to do for themselves).

I am not out to bait or harm or piss off (those seem to be the inevitable irrational reactions I get when I test people's belief systems, especially when they make money on them). I am out to help provide better standards of validation for psuedoscientific claims. Fact is, if a subject is rational and respectful then I will do my best to reciprocate and I really would try to honor any wishes of the subject towards what I did with the results.

Last comment..none of the questions I have posted are rhetorical. I honestly want responses to them and I will be open to whatever responses I get.

Wow is right, taishon. I felt not a shred of hostility or vindictiveness when I posted; my intention
was to point out that the tone of your original post could easily be read as antagonistic and biased, and counterproductive to your intention. It is easy to misread tone in this format. I apologize.
And you certainly misread me, as you rather reamed a new one in your reply.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Its tragically amusing how immediately hostile and insulting people get when you state (no matter how matter of factly) a desire to have it tested. Whatever vast and erroneous interpretation of my tone you want to make..the fact is, if you are charging $$ for it and not calling it entertainment than you should be comfortable with having it tested. After all, if you are that confident that such claims are real, then using a non-subjective test would be desirable validation. If you think that such disciplines are outside of scientific scrutiny then don't package them as being rational disciplines. (Package them as entertainment or some kind of performance art).

Malou- are you assuming I haven't been well versed in psychic studies ? Your post seemed incredibly assumptive..you really don't know what my background is.The biggest skeptics (even ones more skeptical than me) started out believing and being immersed in the disciplines. Malou..what do you know about the Scientific Method ? It definitely applies here.

Want a more Humanistic analogy ? Ok..since we are dealing with human interaction why not compare it counseling or psychology ? Would you be willing to pay an exhorbitant fee to consult one of these disciplines if there is no evidence that they work ? (Marriage counselors tend to have the least success BTW).

Leela8- Wow ! There are so many misquotes and vindictive claims I don't forsee any rational logical dialogue with you. The 'eagerness' of genuinely talented professionals to be tested should be independent of my personal opinion and only dependent on the test being fair and objective. Yes, there have been many studies and I challenge you to come up with one valid study that verifies the claims made by these disciplines. NOT the same thing as saying that things like Psychic powers are false but providing plenty of evidence that making money peddling these claims deserves skepticism.

BTW My personal belief is that there are many things beyond what current Science can explain and there are things of extreme value that aren't Science. I am skeptical (which is very healthy and rational) about the claims I want to test but I absolutely will alter my skepticism based on rational, objective testing results.

The things I've said are only 'baiting' if you are insecure about your beliefs in these claims. My motivation is to apply the Scientific Method to something real.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by natalie:

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what a "douser" is? Thank you!

---

Natalie - a "douser" is someone who puts out fires, usually with water. (I noticed that too!)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

1. Energy Healing (if you define as the manipulation of 'energy fields' at a distance) ...

---

No one has mentioned energy healings "at a distance" before this. The example offered earlier was of acupuncture, which is all too clearly not at distance!
:gettinashot:

And it's true the energy healings at a distance are offered on WaccoBB.net. For your supposedly un biased purpose here, taishon, I suggest you start with local energy healings.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

...If you have a good track record of making your clients needs met/life better over the long term with no net rebounding serious negatives, then more power to you....

---

This discussion points out some of the difficulties with "proving" efficacy in a wholly objective manner. However what is still of value, is past clients/patients testimonials of their perceived benefits from the treatment (or lack thereof).

Hard Scientific Method (SM) studies use self-reported data (such as the Beck Depression Inventory) as the basis for assessing efficacy of treatment.

The upcoming WaccoBB.net Business Directory will be helpful in this regard. Past clients/patients (of all types of service providers, though alternative medicine will be one the focuses) will be invited to post testimonials about their experience with the service provider.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by natalie:

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what a "douser" is? Thank you!

---

Dousing has been around since the beginning of time! Water witching is a form of dousing; using a willow stick you can find your water supply underground for sure. Way more may be accomplice with dousing as well. There are stories of solders douching for underground bunkers, find the Japanese before they came out at night. Map douching with a pendulum, there are stories of finding lost souls, dead or alive, dousing for meds is becoming a common everyday task for those that love the pendulum. Dousing goes beyond the norm for sure. There is a group that meets once a month in Sebastopol, as well there are numerous group all over the world that discuss these practices!

The title of the original post mispelled "dowser." A dowser is a type of divination where the practitioner uses a rod or twig to locate ground water or other types of buried ores and materials, even earth radiation. Some use no equipment at all. It's commonly called water witching.

Ron

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by stuartdole:

Natalie - a "douser" is someone who puts out fires, usually with water. (I noticed that too!)

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

This discussion points out some of the difficulties with "proving" efficacy in a wholly objective manner. However what is still of value, is past clients/patients testimonials of their perceived benefits from the treatment (or lack thereof).

Hard Scientific Method (SM) studies use self-reported data (such as the Beck Depression Inventory) as the basis for assessing efficacy of treatment.

The upcoming WaccoBB.net Business Directory will be helpful in this regard. Past clients/patients (of all types of service providers, though alternative medicine will be one the focuses) will be invited to post testimonials about their experience with the service provider.

---

I guess I am looking to set up a 'harder' science study where I examine the actual physical science basis :0) Self-reported testimony is notoriously subject to errors and uncertainties for many of the reasons I mentioned. I want to more directly and objectively test the phenom.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

The title of the original post mispelled "dowser." A dowser is a type of divination where the practitioner uses a rod or twig to locate ground water or other types of buried ores and materials, even earth radiation. Some use no equipment at all. It's commonly called water witching.

Ron

---

It has been spelled both ways (in English language as well as dowsing/dousing circles) and the official dictionary uses both variants so I would be more investigative before you claim its misspelled. (BTW way you misspelled, mispelled :0)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mykil:

Dousing has been around since the beginning of time! Water witching is a form of dousing; using a willow stick you can find your water supply underground for sure. Way more may be accomplice with dousing as well. There are stories of solders douching for underground bunkers, find the Japanese before they came out at night. Map douching with a pendulum, there are stories of finding lost souls, dead or alive, dousing for meds is becoming a common everyday task for those that love the pendulum. Dousing goes beyond the norm for sure. There is a group that meets once a month in Sebastopol, as well there are numerous group all over the world that discuss these practices!

---

I am not denigrating this post so I hope you don't take it that way..Many beliefs/practices have been around for a long time without having anything close to the merit they claim. BTW- I hope the soldiers weren't actually "douching" with a pendulum :0)
Thanx for the info..I didn't know how all the ways the practice has been used.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

No one has mentioned energy healings "at a distance" before this. The example offered earlier was of acupuncture, which is all too clearly not at distance!
:gettinashot:

And it's true the energy healings at a distance are offered on WaccoBB.net. For your supposedly un biased purpose here, taishon, I suggest you start with local energy healings.

---

Thanx for the suggestion. If energy healing is not done 'at a distance' then it qualifies as direct human contact/touch and can be considered to have some of the same benefits as massage/human contact rather than invisible psychic energy manipulations (UNLESS there is dramatic and verifiable physiological/medical/pathological results). I am not unbiased at all...I am very much skeptical of any psychic energy claims and I honestly believe most commercial psychics to be horrible charlatans. HOWEVER, the methods I propose are unbiased (and will, hopefully, lead to a specific unbiased double blind test)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I want to conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines. Basically, its my belief that if you are making money for your services and your are not marketing them as entertainment then you should be willing to have it tested under controlled conditions. If you are unwilling do that why ? For comparison, would you be willing to take your car to a mechanic or any other professional practicioner who refused to have their work verified ? If interested please reply, if not interested please tell me why.

---

Taishon,
I invite you to experience an energy session (no charge) in my studio. Consider it the first step in your investigative process. :wink:
Linda

Here is a copy of the August issue of Energy Magazine published by the worldwide organization for Healing Touch, a form of Energy Healing accepted and practiced world wide, including in hospitals by doctors and nurses, for over 20 years. Of particular interest may be the section titled "Research" beginning on page 16.
https://www.healingtouchprogram.com/...august2010.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sonomawineandroses:

Taishon,
I invite you to experience an energy session (no charge) in my studio. Consider it the first step in your investigative process. :wink:
Linda

---

But if there's "no charge," where's the energy?

-Jeff :wink:

A great thread indeed!

Thank you all for posing such strong feelings and thoughts as well. After all, health and healing are, well, some of the most central pieces to our life, if not the most central. So why wouldn't we be passionate?

And Taishon, I applaud your intention. Being familiar with the scientific worldview myself (I was raised in it and in studying to be a doctor, got heavy doses), I see the apparent importance with scientifically verifying energy workers. And I do not discourage you from it. In fact, I would be very interested to see the results.

Seeing that you capitalize Science, only helps to remind that this is a particular stance in the world. One based in certain presumptions about how reality works. Just as many cultures have done through history and continue to do today, the beliefs inherent in the scientific worldview (the need for physical evidence, proving things and holding doubt until proven true, etc) are just that, beliefs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs. In fact, it is a much bigger problem not to hold them, but that is in fact a whole other piece of logic to chew. My point here is merely to reflect that Science is a worldview. And a very prevalent one at that.

That said, I believe that rationally it is important to note the shortcomings of double-blind scientific study when looking at health. I have studied with healers in many cultures through out the world. I have worked with mostly Shamanic healers, but also Western doctors, massage therapists, herbalists and more. (Yes, these all overlap.) Science's need for proof can be limiting to the bodies natural ability to heal. Science itself has been increasingly finding that pharmaceutical medicines cannot beat the placebo time and time again. Shamanic healing has known this for years. IN fact, any medicine is provoking natural responses in our body that allow us to finally be healthy. As one of my teachers put it, "medicine's job is to get us in the frame of mind through which health can return" After all, what is our health? Is it a physical composition or a way of relating to our bodies?

Some years ago, I carried out a multi-year study with communities around the world looking at the effects of globalization on local healing traditions. Largely what I was finding is that people were healed by their healers when they believed in it before they went. (At several communities with hundreds of people interviewed, the success rate was 100%!) Similarly, when people did not believe, the success rate was much lower (but not at all 0)...

Now what I found interesting, terrifying and exactly relevant to the stance that you are taking in this realm was the most common story of all: In the majority of communities that I found (from Guatemala, to Kenya, to Thailand, to India and more) the communities were the recipients of well-meaning Westerners' intentions, intentions that resulted in the building of "clinics." The visitors taught everyone how the clinic was, in fact, "better" than their traditional healers, and, at the very least, more modern. (This sort of "behavior change" planning is actually required when receiving most international development grants.) Thus, the people believed the "smart" Americans and stopped going to their local healers. Meanwhile, the clinic was underfunded and could not afford to pay staff nor material fees, and the people are left with no healing options at all when they no longer believed in the local medicine. I wish that this was not the case, but truly, I found it time and time again.

So yes, science can do miraculous things. As it does every day. Still, diminishing belief in health and healing practices does not necessarily aid anything other than the obsessively scientific mind that wants to know "why? and how?" If one believes that something will make them better...than it probably can. If we allow ourselves to belief more, then maybe more will be possible. At least when it comes to health.

Thank you again for your careful consideration of these ideas. A great exercise of the heart and mind.

May you all feel blessed to have healing and may we each feel the miracle of each breath!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Bschwad:

A great thread indeed!

Thank you all for posing such strong feelings and thoughts as well. After all, health and healing are, well, some of the most central pieces to our life, if not the most central. So why wouldn't we be passionate?

And Taishon, I applaud your intention. Being familiar with the scientific worldview myself (I was raised in it and in studying to be a doctor, got heavy doses), I see the apparent importance with scientifically verifying energy workers. And I do not discourage you from it. In fact, I would be very interested to see the results.

Seeing that you capitalize Science, only helps to remind that this is a particular stance in the world. One based in certain presumptions about how reality works. Just as many cultures have done through history and continue to do today, the beliefs inherent in the scientific worldview (the need for physical evidence, proving things and holding doubt until proven true, etc) are just that, beliefs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs. In fact, it is a much bigger problem not to hold them, but that is in fact a whole other piece of logic to chew. My point here is merely to reflect that Science is a worldview. And a very prevalent one at that.

That said, I believe that rationally it is important to note the shortcomings of double-blind scientific study when looking at health. I have studied with healers in many cultures through out the world. I have worked with mostly Shamanic healers, but also Western doctors, massage therapists, herbalists and more. (Yes, these all overlap.) Science's need for proof can be limiting to the bodies natural ability to heal. Science itself has been increasingly finding that pharmaceutical medicines cannot beat the placebo time and time again. Shamanic healing has known this for years. IN fact, any medicine is provoking natural responses in our body that allow us to finally be healthy. As one of my teachers put it, "medicine's job is to get us in the frame of mind through which health can return" After all, what is our health? Is it a physical composition or a way of relating to our bodies?

Some years ago, I carried out a multi-year study with communities around the world looking at the effects of globalization on local healing traditions. Largely what I was finding is that people were healed by their healers when they believed in it before they went. (At several communities with hundreds of people interviewed, the success rate was 100%!) Similarly, when people did not believe, the success rate was much lower (but not at all 0)...

Now what I found interesting, terrifying and exactly relevant to the stance that you are taking in this realm was the most common story of all: In the majority of communities that I found (from Guatemala, to Kenya, to Thailand, to India and more) the communities were the recipients of well-meaning Westerners' intentions, intentions that resulted in the building of "clinics." The visitors taught everyone how the clinic was, in fact, "better" than their traditional healers, and, at the very least, more modern. (This sort of "behavior change" planning is actually required when receiving most international development grants.) Thus, the people believed the "smart" Americans and stopped going to their local healers. Meanwhile, the clinic was underfunded and could not afford to pay staff nor material fees, and the people are left with no healing options at all when they no longer believed in the local medicine. I wish that this was not the case, but truly, I found it time and time again.

So yes, science can do miraculous things. As it does every day. Still, diminishing belief in health and healing practices does not necessarily aid anything other than the obsessively scientific mind that wants to know "why? and how?" If one believes that something will make them better...than it probably can. If we allow ourselves to belief more, then maybe more will be possible. At least when it comes to health.

Thank you again for your careful consideration of these ideas. A great exercise of the heart and mind.

May you all feel blessed to have healing and may we each feel the miracle of each breath!

---

Thank you for this post and I agree, based on my own experiences, whole heartedly with what you have said, even without looking at the data. Western Medicine has a poor track record of long-term health management and holistic integrated work (though it does seem to be slowly changing). I would remark though, that we do a great job at managing immediate trauma and providing protection against infectious diseases etc (true..with sometimes bad long-term effects such as the creation of superbugs). It is incredibly rare that people die of malaria in this country while one of the leading causes of death in 'third world' countries is diahrea due to infectious agents.

I really appreciate your post but its not really directly relevant to what I want to test. I want to test very specific claims by what I call, for Brevity's sake, Psychic workers. The problem with not applying some kind of rigor to belief systems is that can lead to incredibly tragic consequences, such as the fundamentalist family that refuses medical care or , the more current and irrational trend of refusing to give family members vaccinations because a ridiculous belief in the link to autism despite the well-documented evidence to the contrary. This silly belief affects a lot more than just your child and I really believe I should be allowed to sue any parents who, through their ignorance, expose my child to diseases that could have easily been prevented by well researched treatments.

In a way, you and I are arguing the same point from opposite sides of the same coin. What I think is tragic is when patients/clients will put the vast majority of resources into non-rigourous psuedosciences when conventional resources hold more promise and a better track record. Use both, by all means, but be skeptical...its healthy.

Thanks again for your post but I think this is getting way off topic into a debate on Western Medicine vs what I want to do.

Thank you

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sonomawineandroses:

Here is a copy of the August issue of Energy Magazine published by the worldwide organization for Healing Touch, a form of Energy Healing accepted and practiced world wide, including in hospitals by doctors and nurses, for over 20 years. Of particular interest may be the section titled "Research" beginning on page 16.
https://www.healingtouchprogram.com/...august2010.pdf

---

Good article but not what I am trying to get at. In fact, this whole discussion seems to be centered on energy healing so I needs to make a post about that. I definitely believe that energy healing can relieve pain (in my opinion but providing the same modes as massage, meditation etc). I do NOT believe, at this point, that Energy Healing can significantly and directly do things like change cancer cell etc. The article above shows results in relieving pain not results that I am trying to test.

Thanx

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sonomawineandroses:

Taishon,
I invite you to experience an energy session (no charge) in my studio. Consider it the first step in your investigative process. :wink:
Linda

---

First of all, I really appreciate this response and, at some point, I would like to take you up on it. However, unless you expect something miraculous to occur I think it may be counterproductive to what I want to do. Because I am looking at this as a skeptic, my beliefs will heavily bias my experience. At this point, no matter what you do, my beliefs will prejudice the experience and would not be fair to you (unless something truly miraculously happens). Let me be clear, I believe in alternative therapies..I just don't believe in some claims of alternative therapies. I will post something about his for the entire thread.

What my beliefs are unlikely to prejudice, is specific results in a controlled setting (the cancer cells in test tubes for example).

This thread has turned into a Western vs Eastern Medicine thread and I am very grateful to all the replies. I wanted to make a brief comment here.

I am far more interested in testing Palm Reading, Astrology, Psychics, and Dowsers/Dousers than I am Energy Healers. It may turn out that Energy Healing is NOT testable (or testing is not really useful) under the Scientific Method. A summary of claims;

1. Energy Healers claim that what they do manages pain and puts patients in a state of mind so that they heal better. There is no claim that healers are manipulating some kind of psychic energy that is beyond science or that the results are any different than other placebo therapies and holistic practices such as massage, meditation etc. This, I already believe (but I am too much of a skeptic for non-touch or non-physical therapies to work that well on me if its a placebo effect) and I am not interested in testing this (it would be like testing to see if yoga or massage therapy or meditation or musical therapy helps- they do). I applaud you for realizing the potential and limitations of your practice and I hope that you are doing it to genuinely help rather than just a selfish commercial motivation. I also hope that you are encouraging patients to also utilize the full palette of resources Western Medicine can offer.

2. Energy Healers claim that they are special conduits of psychic healing powers and that they do 'act a distance' to manipulate some kind of psychic energy. The results are far more dramatic than can be explained by moderate placebo effects and they do have dramatic and measurable effects on cancer cell counts and T-cell counts. This is measurable and testable. If you claim that you must have a human vessel to 'target' then it is still testable but way beyond what I am willing to try to set up (ie- I would have to commit a large amount of resources and time and work with doctors to get actual patient subjects etc)

Where are all the dousers/dowsers, Psychics, Astrologers, Palm Readers in this thread ?

Thank you for your further clarity on your intentions. It seems a long way from your original assertion that we healers should be marketing ourselves as "entertainers" if we are to receive remuneration.

Much legitimate healing takes place in the realm between "no effect" and "complete remission".

Though I would never claim to be able cure anyone of anything, I always remain open to possibilities. Miracles can and DO happen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sonomawineandroses:

Thank you for your further clarity on your intentions. It seems a long way from your original assertion that we healers should be marketing ourselves as "entertainers" if we are to receive remuneration.

Much legitimate healing takes place in the realm between "no effect" and "complete remission".

Though I would never claim to be able cure anyone of anything, I always remain open to possibilities. Miracles can and DO happen.

---

I should have been more clear or more careful with hyperbole. I, personally, have dealt into the realm I consider 'energy healing' by doing Tai Chi, Yoga, Chi Gung etc. My 'entertainer' comments were primarily directed to the Palm Readers, Astrologers, Psychics etc. I absolutely do believe, if you are promoting Energy Healing as a REPLACEMENT for more conventional healing methods than you really should submit to some very rigorous oversight and a very heavy does of skepticism.

After some thought I've changed my mind about being personally involved in the process. I would be willing (and grateful) to a free session. Whether it produces anything of investigative value, I am likely to learn something and am very curious (if nothing else, a conversation with you would be useful). So, if you are still offering how would you like to set it up ? I promise to be respect any wishes you have about sharing the results (I can't promise I won't share the results with friends/relatives though :0)

Thank you for your participation.

Taishon, it's hard to imagine you're very far into science. A double-blind study is where no one--neither the practitioner nor the receiver nor anyone else in the process--knows whether they're giving/getting is placebo or the real thing. So--by definition--what you're proposing will not be possible.
kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Thank you for this response. Whether we can test what you claim depends on what you claim. If you are not using drugs, specific physical therapies, psychological protocols do you claim that what you do involves manipulations of physical energies ? Do you claim that it is far more than a placebo effect ? I would need to know exactly how you do what you do and what you claim is the actual mechanism happening. Eye witness testimony is not enough and can be easily explained by phenomena other than some kind of psychic energy manipulation.

I am really looking for a specific physical test that, if positive results are indicated, would be strong evidence of causes that cannot be explained by conventional science and rational (ie- psychic energy or such). For example, if you claim that you have a patient with a certain disease or condition (cancer, rash etc) who claims that they are physically doing better after being your patient then, theoretically, we could put cultures of the disease (cancer cells etc) in test tubes and have you do energy healing on the test tubes. If we get positive results that are way beyond statistical variation, then the evidence is very excitingly positive in your favor. If you claim you need the human vessel (patient) then there would be not specific isolated test and it wouldn't be double blind BUT you could examine patient charts to see if the disease/physical condition dramatically improves in the same time period they have been your client.

Note that it can't be a general condition such as back pain which can easily be explained as a placebo effect. It has to be something objectively measurable (dramatically higher T cell counts in patients etc). To use actual patients in a testimony would be a much bigger project requiring legalities etc.

As a side note, my understanding of energy healing is that, in order for it to work, the healer must have a genuine desire to and empathy with the patient (this varies from traditional medicine where the doctor/nurse can be incredibly selfish and still prescribe treatments that work). Do you offer your services, sometimes, for free to needy clients who can't afford it ? If not, why not ? Many doctors and nurses volunteer their time for free as well as pay.

Thank you for your consideration.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

Taishon, it's hard to imagine you're very far into science. A double-blind study is where no one--neither the practitioner nor the receiver nor anyone else in the process--knows whether they're giving/getting is placebo or the real thing. So--by definition--what you're proposing will not be possible.
kathy

---

Its an unfortunate correlation of Internet Discussions that a certain percentage of the responses will be of the snotty ignorant semantics variety rather than any rational intelligent discussion about the actual content. The poster and I have already personally communicated via e-mail (which was a pretty worthless use of my time) and I gave her plenty of opportunity to retract the insulting reply above. I don't set out to be disrespectful, but I will, immaturely I admit, replay in kind when provoked.

So, in brief, here is the relevant link;
https://www.skepdic.com/control.html

In particular the passage "A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls." is applicable. I never once proposed a behavorial study and what I propose to do (perhaps using control and infected test tubes as the 'items') falls easily into the double-blind category. Either you understand this now or you are a stubborn idiot or are just out to be insulting provoking (or both)

Its hard to imagine, Kathryn, that you are very far into rational thought or mature respectful communication. You could have easily asked me how I was going to double-blind this rather start with a petty insulting remark.

The link also addresses some of the experimentation that has already been done on the psuedosciences.

From Sciguy:
I only wanted to respond to the claim that double blind studies are impossible for Dousers, Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers. Scientists are pretty resourceful guys and I believe I have encountered double blind studies of all of these claimants. The claim that science cannot study these has quite a different provenance from merely seeing difficulties. In my opinion, these claimants are scared to death of actually being studied. They know that their claimed abilities are bogus and they want to be able to wave their hands and claim placebo effects without fear of being exposed. Even the "placebo" claim is suspect. Western science deals with some medical defects, like those treated by surgery or antibiotics, that recognize problems that can be solved directly by intervention. Most others are healed by the body itself. The doctor's role is to allow the body to heal. Isn't this a version of placebo healing? What does placebo mean other than the body heals itself? There is nothing that any psychic healer can bring to the table that is not extensively used by doctors. Mental state? Compare to encouragement and bedside manner. In the old days, psychic healers brought hope to people without means to pay for doctoring. Western medicine is admittedly too damned expensive. Are the psychic or untrained healers cheaper? Not always, especially when they prolong suffering that is easily cured by Western methods.

So if you want to know if something can be studied in double blind fashion, ask someone who sets these tests up for a living. Just stating that it can't be done won't work. I think you would be surprised at how easy it is to set up such tests.

Paul Palmer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Its an unfortunate correlation of Internet Discussions that a certain percentage of the responses will be of the snotty ignorant semantics variety rather than any rational intelligent discussion about the actual content. The poster and I have already personally communicated via e-mail (which was a pretty worthless use of my time) and I gave her plenty of opportunity to retract the insulting reply above. I don't set out to be disrespectful, but I will, immaturely I admit, replay in kind when provoked.

So, in brief, here is the relevant link;
https://www.skepdic.com/control.html

In particular the passage "A double-blind test is a control group test where neither the evaluator nor the subject knows which items are controls." is applicable. I never once proposed a behavorial study and what I propose to do (perhaps using control and infected test tubes as the 'items') falls easily into the double-blind category. Either you understand this now or you are a stubborn idiot or are just out to be insulting provoking (or both)

Its hard to imagine, Kathryn, that you are very far into rational thought or mature respectful communication. You could have easily asked me how I was going to double-blind this rather start with a petty insulting remark.

The link also addresses some of the experimentation that has already been done on the psuedosciences.

---

This is an interesting thread for sure! My own background is mixed - I have a PhD in biophysics from Berkeley, I studied meditation and mysticism for 30+ years as a member of an ashram, I have been studying and practicing alternative healing for over 15 years (Reiki, Huna, various bodywork modalities), and lastly I've been through several shamanic initiations and studied shamanic healing in several traditions ("core", Tuvan, Tibetan, Hawaiian huna, Celtic, Brazilian "White Table" work). Currently my wife and I teach shamanic journey skills and healing, and we have a shamanic healing practice.

The shamanic healing is somewhat different from energy healing in that the spirits are "doing it" rather than the practitioner - though there is definitely some overlap.

My own theory of palmistry, astrology, and Tarot (what @taishon is asking about) is that they are divinatory practices, where a really good reader will go into a trance and the information will just flow through her/him. The actual lines on the palm, or the chart, or the card layout just serve to get the process started. A great reader will be able to control the source of that information, and keep an eye on whether it's ethical and/or useful (i.e.: healing) for the client.

Dowsing is something that anyone can become trained to do, is a lot of fun, and some people get really good at it - testing themselves all the time. Richard Feather Anderson gave a wonderful introductory (experiential) demonstration and talk at last month's Santa Rosa IONS meeting.

I gave a talk at the Science Buzz Cafe (at Coffee Catz) a little while back on the intersection between science, mysticism, and shamanism. I am planning on giving the same talk to the Santa Rosa IONS group in October, in case you're interested. I was also on a panel recently about how science is a story.

As a scientist, I totally believe in total immersion in the topic you're studying - if you want to study dowsing, psychics, and so on, get as much training and practice in it as you can. Also, train with more than one school. (Just like if you want to study tropical ecology, you really need to spend time in different tropical ecosystems, just hanging out, looking, poking around, getting a feel for it.)

Lastly, talk to Robert Porter (Sebastopol's resident retired physicist) about "test tube studies" - he has some tales to tell.

More later...

Happy trails!

Thank you very much for this wonderfully kind and sane response and for the excellent advice.

The responses seem to reflect the normal dichotomous dogmatic attitude of the public at large (the latest Bohemian had some letters that reflect the same type of debate);

Dogma 1: You whole-heartedly believe in alternate things like psychic energy to the point where you reject any attempts at validly testing them and label Scientists and Skeptics as narrow-minded ignorant conservatives who are incapable of fairly evaluating the 'alternatives'. The alternatives operate on higher principles than conventional Science and rationale andm by their nature and function, cannot be judged by any scientific methods. Any scientific experiments that have been used to evaluate them have 'flaws' that make the tests invalid.

This is wrong on many levels. Essentially, if you can't evaluate it with Scientific experimentation then you really can't tell if the effects are psychological, internal, placebo etc. Skepticism is, by nature, open-minded and if you refuse to have doubts about the actual effecacy of any of these alternatives then you are really being the narrrow-minded one here. I would even put into the delusional category and either have no, or are not capable of, understanding rational Scientific thought. Stuartdole- I appreciate your post but find it odd that you have an advanced 'hard' science degree from a, supposedly, prestigious institution and you indicated no skepticism in your post. When you mentioned that dowsers learn from other dowsers that should have put immediate red flags in your idea of dowsing at being legit. You seem very well-rounded and open-minded, which is good, but I wonder if you maintain healthy dose of skepticism. Thank for the thoughtful post though. I will look further based on what you have posted.

Dogma 2: All alternatives are BS to the point where you even think things like meditation and yoga are bs. You are unwilling to even accept the possibility that these alternatives could hold promise beyond what is currently understood by conventional Science.

This is just plain arrogant and does not full into the 'Skeptical' category but into simple close-minded opinionation that, unfortunately, can be really prevalent in Science circles. This type of close-mindedness is no less dogmatic than man religious sects (though somewhat more rational, evidence-based, and logic-based). Science is both open-minded and skeptical and, at worse, would say that there is, currently, no evidence to support alternatives.

I, myself, fall into the moderate dogma between those extremes. Using mainly evidence and experiential opinion I hold that there is a hell of a lot of selfish and self-delusional charlatanism in alternate therapy BUT I have, personally, had experiences that defy conventional explanation. The issue I have is when a person travels from open-minded skepticism to irrationally arrogant beliefs for selfish reasons.

I will repeat, IF you are taking money for being an 'expert' in alternative therapies then you either should accept some kind of verifiable (more than inconclusive and uncertain self-reported testimony) OR you should be labeling it a form of Art, Entertainment, or Psychology..or, at minimum, put an up front disclaimer that the results are far from verifiable or guaranteed. Every single job I've held involved open criticism and testing of the results in a verifiable manner (and I was often judged in a ludicrously invalid manner too). The term 'healer, implies, to me, the same level of rigor and oversight of a medical professional at least at the level of a Nurse. (Yes, many times, that oversight fails miserably but at least it exists).

Thanx to all who have respectfully replied..It has been enlightening but I think my original purpose is not going to be met here.

I would like to thank Taishon for bringing this important issue to our attention, even though he/she was unable to get support for a scientific look. To see so many people who seem to mistrust science so completely scares me. I survived a very bad cancer at a young age, a cancer which doctors had said would kill me within the year. (It didn't. That was 15 years ago)

During the horrifying experience of having to make life and death decisions with very little help or information, I was often harassed by charlatans of many stripes offering unproven but very expensive "treatments". Also, I was constantly told that western medicine is nothing but poison, it won't work, eat nothing but raw foods, go to a psychic healer, on and on ad nauseum.

I am not opposed to alternative therapies. I used several of the more "reasonable" ones during my own ordeal, but I also saw many cancer patients taken advantage of by people promising expensive miracles, so this subject is one I feel close to.

I don't have a science background I (languages and creative writing instead), but I have taken the time to educate myself, albeit perfunctorily, in science so that I can read and understand medical journals and records. In my opinion, that, more than anything, saved my life.

Anyway, that is not the point. I just wanted to thank Taishon and to say that I hope that someday soon those of you who make such claims will open yourselves up to the scientific method so that consumers (often people in vulnerable situations) will be better equipped to make the right decisions.

Taishon,

I'm not sure what you expected when you started this thread, but I'm not surprised that you are concluding that your purpose is not being met here. To me your personal bias about these types of people was transparent from the beginning.

You like to present two choices: either dogma 1 or dogma 2; either market yourself as entertainment or subject yourself to a controlled study or ...; if you're not willing then ...

There is no room in your argument for possibilities other than the ones that you see. "The alternatives operate on higher principles than conventional Science and rationale and by their nature and function, cannot be judged by any scientific methods." I don't see anyone here claiming that their healing art operates from a higher principle - it's your claim. Perhaps some of these alternatives operate on different principles than you have an understanding of - not higher or lower.

There are academic arenas where you can do your study, where you can learn from others who are also interested in finding scientific proof about the validity of various healing modalities. These studies have been ongoing for decades. Look up the Menniger Foundation in Kansas. You'll find many other places to do research as well.

Good luck with your endeavor for your truth.

Ron

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

The responses seem to reflect the normal dichotomous dogmatic attitude of the public at large (the latest Bohemian had some letters that reflect the same type of debate);

Dogma 1: You whole-heartedly believe in alternate things like psychic energy to the point where you reject any attempts at validly testing them and label Scientists and Skeptics as narrow-minded ignorant conservatives who are incapable of fairly evaluating the 'alternatives'. The alternatives operate on higher principles than conventional Science and rationale andm by their nature and function, cannot be judged by any scientific methods. Any scientific experiments that have been used to evaluate them have 'flaws' that make the tests invalid.

This is wrong on many levels. Essentially, if you can't evaluate it with Scientific experimentation then you really can't tell if the effects are psychological, internal, placebo etc. Skepticism is, by nature, open-minded and if you refuse to have doubts about the actual effecacy of any of these alternatives then you are really being the narrrow-minded one here. I would even put into the delusional category and either have no, or are not capable of, understanding rational Scientific thought. Stuartdole- I appreciate your post but find it odd that you have an advanced 'hard' science degree from a, supposedly, prestigious institution and you indicated no skepticism in your post. When you mentioned that dowsers learn from other dowsers that should have put immediate red flags in your idea of dowsing at being legit. You seem very well-rounded and open-minded, which is good, but I wonder if you maintain healthy dose of skepticism. Thank for the thoughtful post though. I will look further based on what you have posted.

Dogma 2: All alternatives are BS to the point where you even think things like meditation and yoga are bs. You are unwilling to even accept the possibility that these alternatives could hold promise beyond what is currently understood by conventional Science.

This is just plain arrogant and does not full into the 'Skeptical' category but into simple close-minded opinionation that, unfortunately, can be really prevalent in Science circles. This type of close-mindedness is no less dogmatic than man religious sects (though somewhat more rational, evidence-based, and logic-based). Science is both open-minded and skeptical and, at worse, would say that there is, currently, no evidence to support alternatives.

I, myself, fall into the moderate dogma between those extremes. Using mainly evidence and experiential opinion I hold that there is a hell of a lot of selfish and self-delusional charlatanism in alternate therapy BUT I have, personally, had experiences that defy conventional explanation. The issue I have is when a person travels from open-minded skepticism to irrationally arrogant beliefs for selfish reasons.

I will repeat, IF you are taking money for being an 'expert' in alternative therapies then you either should accept some kind of verifiable (more than inconclusive and uncertain self-reported testimony) OR you should be labeling it a form of Art, Entertainment, or Psychology..or, at minimum, put an up front disclaimer that the results are far from verifiable or guaranteed. Every single job I've held involved open criticism and testing of the results in a verifiable manner (and I was often judged in a ludicrously invalid manner too). The term 'healer, implies, to me, the same level of rigor and oversight of a medical professional at least at the level of a Nurse. (Yes, many times, that oversight fails miserably but at least it exists).

Thanx to all who have respectfully replied..It has been enlightening but I think my original purpose is not going to be met here.

---

I've never hidden my personal bias in these posts...It doesn't mean I am not open to changing it with enough evidence (objective OR subjective). Whenever I see the attempt to claim a lack of open-mindedness on the part of the skeptic its usually a thinly-disguised attempt at subjectively justifying invalid practices. I thank you for the reference at the end and will look into it but, thus far, when I have looked at 'foundations' and 'institutions' of the alternatives variety they are usually just organized clearinghouses of the same delusions with some pretense at truth seeking without any real valid research methodology whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

Taishon,

I'm not sure what you expected when you started this thread, but I'm not surprised that you are concluding that your purpose is not being met here. To me your personal bias about these types of people was transparent from the beginning.

You like to present two choices: either dogma 1 or dogma 2; either market yourself as entertainment or subject yourself to a controlled study or ...; if you're not willing then ...

There is no room in your argument for possibilities other than the ones that you see. "The alternatives operate on higher principles than conventional Science and rationale and by their nature and function, cannot be judged by any scientific methods." I don't see anyone here claiming that their healing art operates from a higher principle - it's your claim. Perhaps some of these alternatives operate on different principles than you have an understanding of - not higher or lower.

There are academic arenas where you can do your study, where you can learn from others who are also interested in finding scientific proof about the validity of various healing modalities. These studies have been ongoing for decades. Look up the Menniger Foundation in Kansas. You'll find many other places to do research as well.

Good luck with your endeavor for your truth.

Ron

---

It should not take you longer than five minutes on the website of the Menniger Foundation to see that your standards will be met. See www.menningerclinic.org. Among the many accomplishments of this institution are the work of Elmer and Alyce Green in biofeedback. Elmer Green received a National Institutes of Health research grant for the autonomic research program at Menniger in the 60's. In 1995 the psychiatric hospital was voted #1 in the nation on a survey done by US News and World Report.

There are other reputable institutions doing this work as well.

Ron

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I've never hidden my personal bias in these posts...It doesn't mean I am not open to changing it with enough evidence (objective OR subjective). Whenever I see the attempt to claim a lack of open-mindedness on the part of the skeptic its usually a thinly-disguised attempt at subjectively justifying invalid practices. I thank you for the reference at the end and will look into it but, thus far, when I have looked at 'foundations' and 'institutions' of the alternatives variety they are usually just organized clearinghouses of the same delusions with some pretense at truth seeking without any real valid research methodology whatsoever.

---

I see nothing on the website (in the brief time I perused it) on 'energy' healing (a term more associated with waving hands over a patient etc etc). If, by 'energy healing' you mean more conventional techniques, such as biofeedback (which does a lot of the same things as Yoga and Meditation and such where you practice self-aware skills of body awareness and mental pathways to control depressions and such) then we have no argument and I have no wish to test it. BTW- I have gotten a fair amount of posts of the 'hey look at this (insert favorite Argument from Authority here)'. While I appreciate the links..its really irrelevant to my original post. I want to personally conduct a controlled (as much as possible given limited resources and much bias) science experiment to test the claims of truly alternative origin. Let me try to change this discussion around;

For all the professionals out there that exist within the title line category;
1. What do you claim as the specific mechanisms of what you do ? (ie- some psychic energy connection in the brain/mind ..what are the specifics as you understand them ?)
2. Whether or not you can claim specific mechanisms how do you know, for sure, that what you do helps ? If you are relying on self-reported testimonies of mental well-being, then how do you know its not just a self-selected placebo (ie- you may only get paying clients that automatically believe in what you do, so what you do must have a positive mental effect) and does it really justify the price say, a severe cancer patient, is charged ? If you can't explain it beyond a select placebo effect then why are you calling it something else, making sometimes vast amounts of money at it, and are you also referring clients to other more rigorously tested therapies like psychological counseling, traditional medicine etc. ? If you do claim its more than a select placebo effect, what do you site as evidence and how do you know that the evidence really points to what you claim ?

Its significant to me that the only replies to my challenge have been from "Energy Healers" rather than any of the others I've 'laid down the glove' to. Unfortunately, "Energy Healing" may be too gray and nebulous to conduct a controlled test on with the resources I have.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:

It should not take you longer than five minutes on the website of the Menniger Foundation to see that your standards will be met. See www.menningerclinic.org. Among the many accomplishments of this institution are the work of Elmer and Alyce Green in biofeedback. Elmer Green received a National Institutes of Health research grant for the autonomic research program at Menniger in the 60's. In 1995 the psychiatric hospital was voted #1 in the nation on a survey done by US News and World Report.

There are other reputable institutions doing this work as well.

Ron

---

One reason you're not getting any other takers is that psychics, astrologers, dowsers and palm readers do not purport to heal.

I'm still curious about how you would arrange to do a double blind test when the practitioner knows who's getting the real deal and who might be getting any fake one. Maybe we have different definitions of double blind.

kathy

This is a very interesting thread. I invite you to contact Dr. David Sowerby at SSU. I believe he could be a good resource for you. To be skeptical is a good thing. It is true that there are many charlatans and flim-flammers in the world. But this unfortunate situation is not confined to your area of interest. Witness the current Mortgage, Financial and Real Estate fiasco. Many people have been fleeced, and many of them should have known better.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by SusanC:

You seem to be very "stuck" in the "scientific method." And, you seem to be unwilling to talk about your credentials (any one can get published these days - this does not a legitimate "researcher" make). It seems that you are very angry about people charging for what they talk about being able to do. If you had a bad experience then part of that fault lies with you - and not doing your homework - thoroughly checking out (as one would a surgeon or mechanic) the reputation of the practitioner

There are problems with the scientific method that are well recognized by people who are trying to study non-scientific practices (see Radin, D; Entangled Minds for example) yet many of these practices - particularly in the "energy healers" category have been accepted by the general scientific community. Accupuncture being one of the best known.

How many medical doctors have gone and taken a weekend course (instead of the 3 year program) so they could "offer" this service to their patients because the patients are demanding and paying for this service? Does "Western Medicine" meet your criteria for testing? How about all of the "medicines" that have been dispensed by "doctors" and done ridiculous amounts of harm....

Unless you are going to submit to a human subjects approval process, and unless you are going to be very clear about your methods and make your research design public - at least to potential subjects and to a human subjects committee, no one should submit to your proposal.

---

Thanx very much for the reference..I will look him up.

I don't mean this to be as rude or impolite as it sounds but I am getting tired of the references to 'other' areas. I agree that many other disciplines have charlatans (even Science and Medicine) but I am struck by the unwillingness of alternative practicioners to be really open about the limits of their practice and how easily it can (and is) used by Charlatans. We can all agree that a lot of politicians are liars and cheaters but I am talking about one specific politician, for example, who may or may not be a liar but is unwilling to really open up his books and his history to scrutiny. If you go to a Mortgage Broker, the MB may say insincere things or even outright lie, but you are a fool to not look closely at the numbers and any lies are written right in the contract. In fact, you are seeing a lot of crappy behavior on the part of homeowners who, realizing that they paid too much in a changed martket (even though the numbers were right in front of them) are demanding to retroactively renegotiate the price..unheard of in any other type of purchase transaction (imagine going back to the grocery store and demanding that they give you a partial refund because the price of eggs dropped on the eggs you bought last week). I don't see that behavior in alternative practices. In any case..I am letting myself get off-tracked..thanx for the reference and I apologize if my response was rude.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Insights:

This is a very interesting thread. I invite you to contact Dr. David Sowerby at SSU. I believe he could be a good resource for you. To be skeptical is a good thing. It is true that there are many charlatans and flim-flammers in the world. But this unfortunate situation is not confined to your area of interest. Witness the current Mortgage, Financial and Real Estate fiasco. Many people have been fleeced, and many of them should have known better.

---

My replies in red below
(I just realized who this post was from and decided to edit my reply. Kathy, I've answered the second question from you in several different ways and you seem completly unwilling or unable to get it so I think future replies to you posts are not a good use of my time)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

One reason you're not getting any other takers is that psychics, astrologers, dowsers and palm readers do not purport to heal.

I don't understand that reply...I never made this thread into one about 'healers'.


I'm still curious about how you would arrange to do a double blind test when the practitioner knows who's getting the real deal and who might be getting any fake one. Maybe we have different definitions of double blind.

Reread some of my posts..a double blind isn't restricted to giving a placebo versus giving something 'real'..it can also be used for the reverse..subjects needing treatments vs subjects that don't (in this case, cancer test tubes vs non-cancer ones,for example). People in this thread seem to be stubbornly stuck on only one specific application of the double-blind when it can be applied in more ways.




kathy

---

Taishon, I have reread all your posts and cannot find anything specifically describing how you would set up a double blind study. You berated me in an early post for not coming out and asking. I do apologize for the flat (and incorrect?) statement that it's impossible, for the insult to you that began my correspondence, and for any unclarity on my part--you may not have realized that I AM ASKING how you would set up a double blind study on any of the services you list.

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

My replies in red below
(I just realized who this post was from and decided to edit my reply. Kathy, I've answered the second question from you in several different ways and you seem completly unwilling or unable to get it so I think future replies to you posts are not a good use of my time)

---

Okay, Taishon, rather than "heal", let's call it "effect change". I can do the semantic dance better than you, so just face the damn music, ok?

You can duck me, T, but there may be other inquiring minds that want to know: How would you set up a double blind study with any of these modalities?

kathy


(me) "One reason you're not getting any other takers is that psychics, astrologers, dowsers and palm readers do not purport to heal."

(Taishon) "I don't understand that reply...I never made this thread into one about 'healers'."

Taishon, No offense taken. I do not feel that you are being 'rude', but rather, 'provokingly dogmatic'. Thank you for your stance.

Dowsing's already been checked: references on Jame Randi's site - and in Germany
They may not exactly match 'double-blind' - but the tests meet the criteria that double-blind is supposed to address. The whole point of a double-blind test is to avoid subjectivity on either the testee or the evaluator. Questions with binary results (as opposed to subjective or proportional measurements) and questions which don't involve any possibility of a placebo effect don't really require double-blind to achieve objectivity in analysis.

Here's some scientific research studies done on mediums. https://nhne-pulse.org/documentary-life-afterlife/ Go to 5 minutes into video 3 and then start video 4.

I understand that you want to believe in something through the use of empirical evidence, and I am available to help you in setting up a way to heal and/or effect change.

One of the first things I need to discuss with you is redifining the narrow and close minded morals of science. This is probably going to be the main sticking point for you, which I totally understand.

The spiritual healing that is generaly practiced isn't very "physical" and is hard to repeat predictably because of some of the laws of psychic energy and the ways to save up and use it.

This type of energy hates repetition.

The good news is there is a reliable method to overcome this limitation to healing work, and I would of course need your help acquiring the animals needed for blood sacrifice to fuel these experiments.

Again, you probably won't take me up on my offer to help you prove something because of our cultural repulsion to animal sacrifice. It's too bad that science has such rigid morals, we could probably go a lot further with science if the morals were empirically based also.

Good luck and I hope you can come to my Seance on Sunday October 17th, I can't guarantee that you will feel or see spooks, since I won't be using any animal sacrifice this time.

Note: I am not endorsing any type of sacrifice, I am merely presenting a point that shows how seriously and rigid scientific thinking can be, and that it is never truly objective.

also just because you can't prove it, it still may exist, and does not require proof of itself

When/where is your Seance being held ? What kind of animals do you need ? When/how do you normally use animal sacrifices ?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by American Shaman:

I understand that you want to believe in something through the use of empirical evidence, and I am available to help you in setting up a way to heal and/or effect change.

One of the first things I need to discuss with you is redifining the narrow and close minded morals of science. This is probably going to be the main sticking point for you, which I totally understand.

The spiritual healing that is generaly practiced isn't very "physical" and is hard to repeat predictably because of some of the laws of psychic energy and the ways to save up and use it.

This type of energy hates repetition.

The good news is there is a reliable method to overcome this limitation to healing work, and I would of course need your help acquiring the animals needed for blood sacrifice to fuel these experiments.

Again, you probably won't take me up on my offer to help you prove something because of our cultural repulsion to animal sacrifice. It's too bad that science has such rigid morals, we could probably go a lot further with science if the morals were empirically based also.

Good luck and I hope you can come to my Seance on Sunday October 17th, I can't guarantee that you will feel or see spooks, since I won't be using any animal sacrifice this time.

Note: I am not endorsing any type of sacrifice, I am merely presenting a point that shows how seriously and rigid scientific thinking can be, and that it is never truly objective.

also just because you can't prove it, it still may exist, and does not require proof of itself

---

Hi American:

I've been to (and conducted) a lot of shamanic ceremonies over the years, from many traditions. They have been very powerful, and I've seen true miracles happen. So far, the only animals that have been relieved of their blood have been the occasional mosquito, and those who gave their all so the facility cafeteria could serve the non-vegetarians (most shamans I've met are not vegetarian, though a few are).

Not to say there hasn't been sacrifice. I've endured a great deal of pain myself at some of these events, as have others. Recall that "sacrifice" means "to make sacred".

I also fully appreciate the value of blood - I donate to the Redwood Blood Bank on a regular basis, and bless the little bags of RBCs and platelets as they go on their journey to the local hospitals. That's sacrifice too. I encourage anyone reading this to do the same.

This brings me to the point: you don't need to use animal blood to do powerful shamanic work. I respect that some traditions do - the Lao shamans sacrifice pigs, the Mongolians horses, the Tibetans chickens. (If you're going to butcher the pig anyway, you may as well do it in a sacred way.) But in many traditions (especially the "core" traditions) all you need is a drum. Riding the drum the shaman can cross the frontiers between the worlds and work the miracles.

In fact, blood sacrifice is more commonly an element of sorcery, rather than shamanism.

Maybe you were just baiting @taishon?

In any case, good luck with your seance on the 17th.

BTW: I'll certainly agree that the work is not 100% "reliable" - shamanism depends on the cooperation and partnership of the spirits, and they have their own agendas and schedules.

Happy trails,
Stuart

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by American Shaman:

I understand that you want to believe in something through the use of empirical evidence, and I am available to help you in setting up a way to heal and/or effect change.



Note: I am not endorsing any type of sacrifice, I am merely presenting a point that shows how seriously and rigid scientific thinking can be, and that it is never truly objective.

also just because you can't prove it, it still may exist, and does not require proof of itself

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

When/where is your Seance being held ? What kind of animals do you need ? When/how do you normally use animal sacrifices ?

---

the Seance is going to be held at the Songbird community Center,
8280 Old Redwood Hwy., Cotati, CA 94931
the Seance will begin at 6pm on Sunday October 17th, feel free to bring an item from someone you know that has died and wish to communicate with. I will not promise anything, since the spirit world is known for their lack of reliability.

There will be no animal sacrifice for this Seance. If you are asking me out of what it would take to work for science, I would say to start small and move up to larger animals. I would like to point out that I am merely the guide, I would expect the person wanting the results to take on the karma and responsibility of the sacrifice. I would never do a sacrifice for free, I am not very Christian when it comes to these things.

I cannot discuss animal sacrifice in the real sense, or say that I have done it. We are having a theoretical debate currently, on a public forum. Anything I have said does not admit or condone animal sacrifice or any breaking of laws.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by stuartdole:

Hi American:


This brings me to the point: you don't need to use animal blood to do powerful shamanic work. I respect that some traditions do - the Lao shamans sacrifice pigs, the Mongolians horses, the Tibetans chickens. (If you're going to butcher the pig anyway, you may as well do it in a sacred way.) But in many traditions (especially the "core" traditions) all you need is a drum. Riding the drum the shaman can cross the frontiers between the worlds and work the miracles.

In fact, blood sacrifice is more commonly an element of sorcery, rather than shamanism.

Maybe you were just baiting @taishon?


Happy trails,
Stuart

---

Stuart,

I think I was pretty clear about my baiting taishon, but I was also introducing a strategy of argument pointing out some of the narrow thinking about peer reviewed scientific thought. Everything has to be proven in relation to the narrow and close minded peers of science in order for it to be accepted. Even if you published a groundbreaking scientific proof of the existense of god that could be repeated, it still would never be published or accepted, simply because of the beliefs of those who are already in charge, and any accomplished researcher would never put their name on it because they would lose credibility.

You could never write or publish a paper about the use of sacrifice in creating effect, it would be illegal and Peta would have you kicked out of whatever institutions or organizations you were a member of. Again, science is all about the facts, but ethics derived from current thought, not scientific prinipals, is what dominates research.

You are right, there is very little call for using animal sacrifice in shamanic work, and the karma cost is expremely high. In order for me to think about doing it, all other possibilities would have to be exhausted...absolute last resort.

You mentioned about certain tribes, because of my heritage, which is a homogonized mix of european blood that has been in America for a long time, I have decided to call my title as "American Shaman" The American people are my tribe, and this is the tribe I serve. I sometimes wish I had an exotic heritage with a well established tradition of Shamanism, but I don't. When I have communications with my ancestors, a whole bunch of old white, mormon men show up. These are not very helpful, as I am no longer mormon and they disagree with my life. the other ancestors are so varied and mixed, that I don't have a way to get any information or comfort out of them. I suspect most Americans have this problem, and we are trying to find this.

Anyways, a bit off topic.

just realize, no animals have been harmed in this conversation, and this is all for theoretical discusions. I do not condone or promote animal sacrifices or any other illegal activity.

Justin Hunter--American Shaman

American Shaman;

2 points;

1. What you seem to be attempting to do is to convince me to reject rational and evidence-based thought to believe in something that, by your description, seems to be based on obfuscation, silly rationalizing and circular self-referential delusion. You seem to be sustaining a belief based primarily on rejection of rational systems rather than any valid, substantive experience. To throw your 'logic' back at you..rather than maintaining any open-minded rigorous inquiry I am guessing you will automatically reject any conventional explanations and skepticism and always opt for the false belief that I am the close-mined and delusional one. Your post was incoherent and in the category of "well, you should believe what I say despite any evidence to the contrary or a lack of any evidence period". You absolutely are NOT being more open-mined than me..quite the reverse.

2. It wasn't obvious from your post that you were 'kidding' about the animal sacrifice and, as such, I contacted the police and sheriff. You have not yet admitted to committing an illegal act but I am adamantly opposed to acts of animal cruelty. Yes, I put mass beef farming and such in the animal cruelty category but I can't do much about that (I personally believe that anyone who eats meat should have to kill and harvest the animal themselves). Animal sacrifice is a cruel, selfish act and a waste (unless you use the whole animal). If you were attempting to disrespectfully 'bait' me, you did so in an obnoxiously stupid way. (Why by the way ? I have never baited anyone here but I have respectfully challenged them and only gotten into the disrespectful category when replying in kind to an initial assault).

I am wasting my time here and need to unsubscribe from the thread. It really is telling how thoughtful open-minded truth-seeking skeptics like myself are considered the 'close narrow-minded' ones when the reality is the reverse (but then, the more obnoxious replies I've gotten aren't from those interested in reality). I really do believe in the power of belief but I temper it with rational, healthy, non-delusionality. You should ask yourselves...which is the greater harm- actually caring about the world and using clear lenses or putting up a pretense of 'higher caring' that masks some really basic selfish wants for money and a need to belong to an 'exclusive' group ?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by American Shaman:

Stuart,

I think I was pretty clear about my baiting taishon, but I was also introducing a strategy of argument pointing out some of the narrow thinking about peer reviewed scientific thought. Everything has to be proven in relation to the narrow and close minded peers of science in order for it to be accepted. Even if you published a groundbreaking scientific proof of the existense of god that could be repeated, it still would never be published or accepted, simply because of the beliefs of those who are already in charge, and any accomplished researcher would never put their name on it because they would lose credibility.

You could never write or publish a paper about the use of sacrifice in creating effect, it would be illegal and Peta would have you kicked out of whatever institutions or organizations you were a member of. Again, science is all about the facts, but ethics derived from current thought, not scientific prinipals, is what dominates research.

You are right, there is very little call for using animal sacrifice in shamanic work, and the karma cost is expremely high. In order for me to think about doing it, all other possibilities would have to be exhausted...absolute last resort.

You mentioned about certain tribes, because of my heritage, which is a homogonized mix of european blood that has been in America for a long time, I have decided to call my title as "American Shaman" The American people are my tribe, and this is the tribe I serve. I sometimes wish I had an exotic heritage with a well established tradition of Shamanism, but I don't. When I have communications with my ancestors, a whole bunch of old white, mormon men show up. These are not very helpful, as I am no longer mormon and they disagree with my life. the other ancestors are so varied and mixed, that I don't have a way to get any information or comfort out of them. I suspect most Americans have this problem, and we are trying to find this.

Anyways, a bit off topic.

just realize, no animals have been harmed in this conversation, and this is all for theoretical discusions. I do not condone or promote animal sacrifices or any other illegal activity.

Justin Hunter--American Shaman

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by American Shaman:

I understand that you want to believe in something through the use of empirical evidence, and I am available to help you in setting up a way to heal and/or effect change.

---

"believe" is an unfortunate word. It's hiding the difference between faith in a god and acceptance of the evidence that life has evolved.

Quote:

---

One of the first things I need to discuss with you is redifining the narrow and close minded morals of science. This is probably going to be the main sticking point for you, which I totally understand.

---

no, somehow I doubt you understand at all. Science isn't based on morals, and 'narrow' isn't as good a word as 'constrained'. Science is constrained to deal with things that can be analyzed and measured, and can be used to make testable reliable predictions. The difference between the probability that an electron will be found in a certain location, and that a spirit might be moved to do whatever spirits do at a seance, is that the odds are given in advance and are tested. Saying that a spirit is capricious and failed to show up because of some ill-defined and untestable problem with the 'psychic energy' removes it from scientific inquiry.

Quote:

---

The spiritual healing that is generaly practiced isn't very "physical" and is hard to repeat predictably because of some of the laws of psychic energy and the ways to save up and use it.

This type of energy hates repetition.

The good news is there is a reliable method to overcome this limitation to healing work... It's too bad that science has such rigid morals, we could probably go a lot further with science if the morals were empirically based also..... presenting a point that shows how seriously and rigid scientific thinking can be, and that it is never truly objective.... also just because you can't prove it, it still may exist, and does not require proof of itself

---

again, science doesn't have morals, but societies do. Thus the objection to Nazi medical research, for example - which may have not been very scientific, but whether it was or not, was immoral. And if science is one thing, it's 'truly objective'. There's nothing in scientific thinking that says it describes everything that exists. It is a very specific way to question ideas and some ideas don't lend themselves to scientific inquiry. The point is, it's difficult to come up with any way to prove the validity of such ideas. In many cases, who cares? critters throughout the life of the planet have operated successfully without any attempts at testing the accuracy of their perceptions. Science arose because people wanted to describe an objective reality. Much of people's internal lives isn't concerned with objective reality at all.

Taishon in case you haven't already unsubbed, I'm still asking 1) how you would construct a double-blind study for these fields, and 2) what is the effect you want to measure?

Remember you chided* me for not coming out and asking but instead saying it was impossible. Since then I have been asking.

*Actually, and mostly in private emails, you threw verbal battery acid in my face, if truth be told. Happy to quote here if you deny it.

kathy

Tashion:

Why are you bothering to write long screeds to these phonies? This self-appointed shaman knows less about psychic healing folderol than he does about the mathematics of string theory. Dowsers have been demonstrated to be frauds for centuries. Talk about energy keeps tumbling out of their mouths but they have no idea what it means except that it seems to be a good word to pull the wool over the eyes of the unwashed gulliblerati of Sebastopol. Ditto with chi, which is useful since no one knows what it means. The self-appointed psychics can't even predict whether it will rain tomorrow unless they listen to the weather report (put out by scientists). These frauds are green with jealousy of you because you actually have some learning under your belt. Claiming that scientists, who do the hard work of educating themselves, are somehow closed minded is a favorite rant of lazy know-nothings who prefer to get their education by awarding each other paper degrees and claiming supernormal powers that don't exist and never did exist.

Science is the way that human beings learn about the world, not shaking rattles or waving sticks. And scientists are, as a class, the most openminded people you can find. Scientific journals are filled with enthusiastic admissions that authors were wrong and are grateful for a new experiment that sends them in a newly productive direction they hadn't considered. (At the same time, scientists are human and have destructive regrets and jealousies too).

These self appointed demigods will never learn anything from you. All they do is waste time with their meaningless claims that consummate knowledge is obtained in dark rooms by contemplating their navels. The ones writing to you couldn't even design a can opener, much less an LED dependent on chemistry and quantum mechanics. Even that towering fraud in the Vatican knows enough to go to a real doctor when he gets sick, not to one of his pals who "speaks to god". You've been as patient and open minded as anyone could ask. It's time to tell it like it really is and put the frauds in their place.

Paul Palmer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

American Shaman;

2 points;

1. What you seem to be attempting to do is to convince me to reject rational and evidence-based thought to believe in something that, by your description, seems to be based on obfuscation, silly rationalizing and circular self-referential delusion. You seem to be sustaining a belief based primarily on rejection of rational systems rather than any valid, substantive experience. To throw your 'logic' back at you..rather than maintaining any open-minded rigorous inquiry I am guessing you will automatically reject any conventional explanations and skepticism and always opt for the false belief that I am the close-mined and delusional one. Your post was incoherent and in the category of "well, you should believe what I say despite any evidence to the contrary or a lack of any evidence period". You absolutely are NOT being more open-mined than me..quite the reverse.

2. It wasn't obvious from your post that you were 'kidding' about the animal sacrifice and, as such, I contacted the police and sheriff. You have not yet admitted to committing an illegal act but I am adamantly opposed to acts of animal cruelty. Yes, I put mass beef farming and such in the animal cruelty category but I can't do much about that (I personally believe that anyone who eats meat should have to kill and harvest the animal themselves). Animal sacrifice is a cruel, selfish act and a waste (unless you use the whole animal). If you were attempting to disrespectfully 'bait' me, you did so in an obnoxiously stupid way. (Why by the way ? I have never baited anyone here but I have respectfully challenged them and only gotten into the disrespectful category when replying in kind to an initial assault).

I am wasting my time here and need to unsubscribe from the thread. It really is telling how thoughtful open-minded truth-seeking skeptics like myself are considered the 'close narrow-minded' ones when the reality is the reverse (but then, the more obnoxious replies I've gotten aren't from those interested in reality). I really do believe in the power of belief but I temper it with rational, healthy, non-delusionality. You should ask yourselves...which is the greater harm- actually caring about the world and using clear lenses or putting up a pretense of 'higher caring' that masks some really basic selfish wants for money and a need to belong to an 'exclusive' group ?

---

I accept your delightful use of "gulliblerati" to offset the otherwise biting tone of your post.

With regards to "chi" I beg to differ. Have you ever had acupuncture? If you have, you should know what happens when your chi it tapped. It's also clearly observed in the eye of people, where their spirit is clearly shining or dim, or a plant that is thriving or struggling. And in both cases, when the chi is low, dis-ease soon follows whether it be a "medical" illness, or an attack of insects that decide to bypass the plant with the stronger "chi".

More about this below.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sciguy:

Tashion:

Why are you bothering to write long screeds to these phonies? This self-appointed shaman knows less about psychic healing folderol than he does about the mathematics of string theory. Dowsers have been demonstrated to be frauds for centuries. Talk about energy keeps tumbling out of their mouths but they have no idea what it means except that it seems to be a good word to pull the wool over the eyes of the unwashed gulliblerati of Sebastopol. Ditto with chi, which is useful since no one knows what it means. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...With regards to "chi" I beg to differ. Have you ever had acupuncture? If you have, you should know what happens when you chi it tapped. It's also clearly observed in the eye of people, where their spirit is clearly shining or dim, or a plant that is thriving or struggling. ....

---

this actually kind of illustrates the problem of applying scientific methods and terms to these. "Chi" may be intuitively understood, but it's not a definable phenomenon. "Energy" itself is actually a somewhat meaningless term, and over the last couple of hundred years there's been intense research and debate in an attempt to more rigorously define the various phenomena that are lumped together by that word. Many of the objections raised by scientists when claims are made about 'chi' are due to the "I know it when I see it" nature of the stuff, whatever it is.
So for example, when you use your finely honed observational skills to read a fellow human's health and well being (a skill that's hugely important to our species' success) it's convenient to describe your overall judgment as seeing their "chi". But I don't think it's a useful scientific term until it can be defined, measured, and those measurements used as a prediction about the person's future state. Using a double-blind technique of course!!!

This is a good thread folks, even if it pushes the boundaries of respectful public dialog.

First off, I think Dousers should be split off from the other disciplines listed in that it does not operate on people and it can be objectively tested. The rest (Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers) work with people. I will split off the dousers posts if there is further interest.

I want to remind taishon, that his first sentence that began this thread was:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I want to conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines. ...

---

OK, Great! However, I do not notice where you specify exactly what test you propose. You mention the test tube example several times however this does not apply, in that I doubt any of the practitioners in the disciplines mentioned would claim that they would have an effect on disembodied living tissue.

You also say that:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Note that it can't be a general condition such as back pain which can easily be explained as a placebo effect.

---

OK, so once again, please describe an example of a condition that would be suitable to test and that you are ABLE AND WILLING to test. Of course, like any scientific experiment, you would need multiple specimens, such as your test tube example, to be able assess any changes of degree as opposed to absolute efficacy.

Whether or not you find both the subjects and the practitioners to cooperate with your proposed experiment we'll be put aside for the moment. This is a softball down the middle - What precisely do you want test and how?

I'll be impressed if you respond in either of these ways:

1. You rise to the challenge and describe your proposed experiment and be willing to follow through if it can be arranged
2. You admit this is not possible, or at a bare minimum, that you are not able (for whatever reason) to do such an experiment with worthy rigor.

With all your scientific talk, I don't think you have thought this through.

Some more general comments follow in my next post.

I believe it was American Shaman who wrote, " Even if you published a groundbreaking scientific proof of the existense of god that could be repeated..." To that I say, BRING IT ON! But alas, that is not going to happen. On the other hand, I guess there are millions of "open minded" people who will believe it anyway? Something is not quite fitting for me here.

Regarding acupuncture and chi: I had acupuncture treatments for several years. They worked really well for pain, but I never understood what they meant when they talked about chi, as in we'll remove this herb from your prescription because it is too cold for your chi??

I am relatively new to the area and to be honest, I am finding it shocking to see that the majority of people are so willing to believe in anything anyone tells them without proof of any kind, only "belief".

Ok..I am officially not subscribing to this thread any more because I am getting tired of the "you don't understand the science etc etc" and no matter how much I explain, lay out, clarify, those who are in the "alternatives" work camp will continue to be insulting and just plain irrationally silly..

Barry,
I have posted many valid examples of possible tests..I can easily test to see if any of the above methods work with any reliability beyond any claims of self-described psychological effects. If you claim that the above methods produce significant results beyond any kind random statistical norm, then I can validly test it. But you and every other person who refuses to pay attention to rational thought and the scientific method seem intent on claiming that the test is invalid and will continue to try and tear apart my very rational proposition and arguments by taking stuff out of context or misquoting or calling the results 'beyond science'. if the practioners claim a 'beyond science' mechanism then I can't test that but I can test whether their practice produces results that justify the incredible gobs of cash they often charge.

Its pretty stupidly silly that I keep getting accused of two things that the accuser demonstrates in spades;
1. Close-mindedness
2. A lack of understanding of science.

Yet again, when faced with a real honest challenge I become the target of Reducto Absurdo, Ad Hoc, Ad Hominem attacks instead of any possible rational discourse.

I guess I really should stop caring and responding. The bottom line is that its a self-eliminating phenom..I can;t really respect anyone who doesn't get what I am posting (and responds in a vindictive manner).

BTW- I believe in the concept of chi and the results that can occur with the idea of chi..I just don't believe in peddling it at $100/hr without any promise of verifiable return that justifies the expense.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

This is a good thread folks, even if it pushes the boundaries of respectful public dialog.

First off, I think Dousers should be split off from the other disciplines listed in that it does not operate on people and it can be objectively tested. The rest (Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers) work with people. I will split off the dousers posts if there is further interest.

I want to remind taishon, that his first sentence that began this thread was:



OK, Great! However, I do not notice where you specify exactly what test you propose. You mention the test tube example several times however this does not apply, in that I doubt any of the practitioners in the disciplines mentioned would claim that they would have an effect on disembodied living tissue.

You also say that:


OK, so once again, please describe an example of a condition that would be suitable to test and that you are ABLE AND WILLING to test. Of course, like any scientific experiment, you would need multiple specimens, such as your test tube example, to be able assess any changes of degree as opposed to absolute efficacy.

Whether or not you find both the subjects and the practitioners to cooperate with your proposed experiment we'll be put aside for the moment. This is a softball down the middle - What precisely do you want test and how?

I'll be impressed if you respond in either of these ways:

1. You rise to the challenge and describe your proposed experiment and be willing to follow through if it can be arranged
2. You admit this is not possible, or at a bare minimum, that you are not able (for whatever reason) to do such an experiment with worthy rigor.

With all your scientific talk, I don't think you have thought this through.

Some more general comments follow in my next post.

---

so, taishon, rather than posting one simple double-blind study of the subjects in question, you are picking up your marbles and stomping off in a huff?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Ok..I am officially not subscribing to this thread any more ...
I have posted many valid examples of possible tests..I can easily test to see if any of the above methods work with any reliability beyond any claims of self-described psychological effects.....

---

I think that Barry's requesting a concrete action. Maybe it'd be entertaining/educational to set up some kind of experiment at a WaccoBB picnic someday, for example. This thread is very light on specifics. I don't mean sacrifice a goat and cure someone's asthma or anything.. even if birria's on the menu. But something Mythbuster-ish would be fun. This thread's gotten long and twisted enough that I can't find whether or not you expressed personal interest in doing such a test yourself, or were just saying it was theoretically easy to do....

Quote:

---

BTW- I believe in the concept of chi and the results that can occur with the idea of chi....

---

?? didn't see -that- coming.

Birria! Mmmm....

Had a relationship with a practitioner of TCM. Used to place acupuncture needles on her under her instruction. Never let her do it for/to me. Long story, I'm not a fan of going into vaso-vagal shock. Been there done that. Stick me with a needle, if there's a good reason, no problem. Just don't leave it there, me body no like. They told me to quit trying to give blood in my early twenties. What a drag.

Tried to use some prescribed Chinese herb tea to work on my allergies and asthma. When I was involved with the TCM doc. She asked a Vietnamese doctor friend to diagnose me. Nice guy, took my pulse, checked my tongue, eyes and muscle tone. It was all about Chi. Couldn't handle the incredibly foul taste. That was the end of that!

I do miss her massages, the best I ever had. She knew how to work muscles hard, going in slow, increasing intensity to an almost unbearable point, then releasing sloooowwwlllllyyyyy. Fantastic. Walked away lighter than air, felt the positive effects for days after. With some muscle soreness but I knew that meant they were healing, growing, relaxed.

I'm on the side of science over unprovable belief, hence my gratitude pattern today. But I also know I don't know everything, nobody does and nobody ever will.

Science is subject to critique both internally and externally. One of the more subtle theoretical realizations I came upon in my days as an active philosophy student, was that the methods and culture of science are not neutral. Some, especially scientists and their allies, claim it is.

"Science just tries to discover the truths of our universe, subject to verification and paradigm shift."

What they won't accept is that science is deployed for economic, political, military and other instrumental purposes. What gets funded has to do with who's in power and what their interests are. That's not neutral, that's a bias. The kinds of questions asked, who asks them, how they're asked, has as much to do with the political / cultural context in which scientists operate, as any objective laws of nature, physics, math, etc. I know that's scientific heresy. So what.

This is not to equate the scientific method and its results with other belief systems. That's absurd. Science is unique. I just reject the claim that it is value neutral.

Taishon, you make some good points, but in watching this thread unfold, my memory is that you came in like a new gun slinger looking to prove his skills and elevate his rep, throwing his weight around in the town bar. Issuing a challenge, and getting more hostile when it wasn't quickly taken up. That's not an effective way to engender cooperation.

Kathy, you literally threatened Taishon with blackmail today! That surprised me. Even though I have no doubt that his private communication was even more belligerent than his public writing here.

For anyone who hasn't read this site for all of the five years it's existed, and the yahoogroup for another five or more years before that, this topic has been thoroughly covered. It's, all together now, all there in the archive!

(I subscribed to the yahoogroup in '03 to look for a job, never found the job, but found plenty of amusement and opportunity to express myself.)

The debate remains unresolved.

On behalf of the goat, if no one else, I'm sort of glad!

Medicine, for the most part, does not do the curing. It merely sets the conditions for the body to heal itself. This even applies to a broken bone (the body does the mending) or an antibiotic (that stimulates the bodies immune system).

It’s my opinion, if not a generally accepted medical fact, that many illness (though clearly not all) are fundamentally caused by a psychological/emotional condition. This goes for cancer on down. The body’s energy systems are out of balance that creates an opening for an illness to take root.

So while acute medicine may be helpful to treat what is essentially the symptoms, working the psychological/emotional basis is also very valid and yet more fundamental.

It’s also very squishy. There are not objective measurements that someone’s fundamental self/life view shifted 22% which resulted in 38% reduction in days of depression, shrunk their tumor, found their life partner (which can have all sorts of health effects), or increased their income.

Even it does nothing but enhance the placebo effect (which is one of the more powerful “medicines” around) it’s valid! To refute this, is also is to refute psychotherapy (where there is nothing objective being given, such as a pill, to the patient).

A good example, because it is so extreme, of something that is designed to enhance the placebo effect is “psychic surgeons” where they purport to physically remove whatever the problem is. I believe John of God fall into this category, although it doesn’t appear that he claims to physically remove anything, but others do. I have a problem that the “surgery” is based on a deception (i.e. the removed bits did not actually start of inside the patient). However this might not matter in the end. If patient believes this, their placebo effect is that much more powerful and heals that much more. Does the mechanism really matter? Again, the “surgery” created the conditions for the body to heal itself.

Licensed psychotherapists supposedly meet some kind of objective criteria, but that is far from a guarantee that a particular therapist is either truly capable or will effect some change.

I don’t see a difference here other than the professions you specify (Psychics, Astrologers, Energy Healers, Palm Readers) are clearly un-regulated nor standardized. They are essentially unlicensed counselors, some will probably help, some probably won’t, just like other licensed counselors.

In the absence of both testing and licensing, what there is to fall back on is personal testimonials. And even if licensing is available, personal testimonials are still the gold standard, IMO, when it comes to medicine and most other services. They are far from objective or scientific, but if a person truly felt the “treatment” was helpful, that’s what counts.

There are different sorts of testimonials however. There are the testimonials that are selected by the service provider for instance. Clearly the selection process is subject to, shall we say, a certain bias, but are none the less of some value. Testimonials from patients/clients that are unfiltered by the provider may be more representative. And a testimonial from someone you know and trust may yet carry more weight.

I hope you’ll pardon a shameless plug at this point: It is precisely because of the lack of objective measurements of service providers (whether they be astrologers or house cleaners) and the value of personal testimonials, that we’ll soon be adding on a Business Directory to the site, where unfiltered (but still moderated) testimonials can be collected and reviewed when deciding to hire a service provider.

See embedded reply;

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Birria! Mmmm....

Had a relationship with a practitioner of TCM. Used to place acupuncture needles on her under her instruction. Never let her do it for/to me. Long story, I'm not a fan of going into vaso-vagal shock. Been there done that. Stick me with a needle, if there's a good reason, no problem. Just don't leave it there, me body no like. They told me to quit trying to give blood in my early twenties. What a drag.

Tried to use some prescribed Chinese herb tea to work on my allergies and asthma. When I was involved with the TCM doc. She asked a Vietnamese doctor friend to diagnose me. Nice guy, took my pulse, checked my tongue, eyes and muscle tone. It was all about Chi. Couldn't handle the incredibly foul taste. That was the end of that!

I do miss her massages, the best I ever had. She knew how to work muscles hard, going in slow, increasing intensity to an almost unbearable point, then releasing sloooowwwlllllyyyyy. Fantastic. Walked away lighter than air, felt the positive effects for days after. With some muscle soreness but I knew that meant they were healing, growing, relaxed.

I'm on the side of science over unprovable belief, hence my gratitude pattern today. But I also know I don't know everything, nobody does and nobody ever will.

Science is subject to critique both internally and externally. One of the more subtle theoretical realizations I came upon in my days as an active philosophy student, was that the methods and culture of science are not neutral. Some, especially scientists and their allies, claim it is.

"Science just tries to discover the truths of our universe, subject to verification and paradigm shift."

What they won't accept is that science is deployed for economic, political, military and other instrumental purposes. What gets funded has to do with who's in power and what their interests are. That's not neutral, that's a bias. The kinds of questions asked, who asks them, how they're asked, has as much to do with the political / cultural context in which scientists operate, as any objective laws of nature, physics, math, etc. I know that's scientific heresy. So what.

This is not to equate the scientific method and its results with other belief systems. That's absurd. Science is unique. I just reject the claim that it is value neutral.

Taishon, you make some good points, but in watching this thread unfold, my memory is that you came in like a new gun slinger looking to prove his skills and elevate his rep, throwing his weight around in the town bar. Issuing a challenge, and getting more hostile when it wasn't quickly taken up. That's not an effective way to engender cooperation.


Up to this point, I considered this a reasoned insightful post then it degenerated into the typical personal insulting pableem that is so prevalen here.
1. I am not 'new' to the board and neither am I 'slinging guns' My skills are proven and my rep is also with the people I care about (not the majority of obnoxious replies here). Any hostility I have dealt is reaction to initial hostilities. My point was to provide an interesting science experiment to my students and, I admit, to hold alternatives practioners more accountable.
Most of this post was decent and recent but I suggest you withold your arrogant and insulting personal assumptions about me until you truly and really understand me and my intentions. Nothing I posted merited them.


Kathy, you literally threatened Taishon with blackmail today! That surprised me. Even though I have no doubt that his private communication was even more belligerent than his public writing here.

For anyone who hasn't read this site for all of the five years it's existed, and the yahoogroup for another five or more years before that, this topic has been thoroughly covered. It's, all together now, all there in the archive!

(I subscribed to the yahoogroup in '03 to look for a job, never found the job, but found plenty of amusement and opportunity to express myself.)

The debate remains unresolved.

On behalf of the goat, if no one else, I'm sort of glad!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I think that Barry's requesting a concrete action. Maybe it'd be entertaining/educational to set up some kind of experiment at a WaccoBB picnic someday, for example. This thread is very light on specifics. I don't mean sacrifice a goat and cure someone's asthma or anything.. even if birria's on the menu. But something Mythbuster-ish would be fun. This thread's gotten long and twisted enough that I can't find whether or not you expressed personal interest in doing such a test yourself, or were just saying it was theoretically easy to do....
?? didn't see -that- coming.

---

Honestly ? Why ? Because you have some kind of ingrained personal assumptions about what I must be like because I value science ? This is why its so frustrating trying to promote a moderate, skeptical, reasonable, truth seeking view..people are absolutely stuck with their dichotomies in this country. Its absolutely consistent that I believe in Chi as a useful concept and that I am skeptical of things like Psychics and palm Reading. Anyone..I like your mythbusters idea :0)

Taishon,

Sorry if my characterization/description of what I saw in your behavior, while initiating but even more participating on this thread, insulted you. My goal was to describe what I read. Based solely on your original post and replies. You came on neutral, but very quickly got combative and defensive. That's my memory and I read carefully.

I didn't expect you to agree with me, just understand how I saw it. Your reply kind of proves my point.

I made no assumptions about your identity and character, other than what you've shared here. Which is admittedly like looking through a pinhole at someone, for about five seconds. Hence my lack of any general conclusions about who you are. Notice I wrote: "...in watching this thread unfold, my memory is..." it's just me telling you my opinion.

I'm not judging your character or personal history. Even if I knew it, I wouldn't. Unless you gave me some compelling reason to dislike you, which you haven't and it's actually a pretty hard thing for anyone to do. They really have to try at it!

I understand being frustrated and defensive. I just finished an extensive tit for tat pissing match on Dissident Voice, with one of the resident thought police. It's no fun. This medium has many limits, and reading tone, attitude and intention (between the lines) without the visual cues of inflection, facial affect and body language, makes discussion quite difficult.

Mia Culpa if I've misunderstood you. I was simply reporting, based on my experience.

You're a teacher, I respect that. It's a hard and frustrating job. And, aside from financially (with a few exceptions), very rewarding. But surely you don't react with such hostility in your classes? If so, tell me how I can get a teaching job like that! I'd love to freely express myself and still get paid!!! ;-)

Peace Out,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Honestly ? Why ? Because you have some kind of ingrained personal assumptions about what I must be like because I value science ? This is why its so frustrating trying to promote a moderate, skeptical, reasonable, truth seeking view..people are absolutely stuck with their dichotomies in this country. Its absolutely consistent that I believe in Chi as a useful concept and that I am skeptical of things like Psychics and palm Reading. Anyone..I like your mythbusters idea :0)

---

actually, it's because of the trajectory of this thread, not any presumptions about your beliefs. As you say, chi is a 'useful concept', but yeah, when referred to in this context I'd expect it to be grouped with things that have yet to be integrated with a scientific perspective - which I thought was the theme of the original post.
I'm glad you like the mythbuster idea - it'd be cool if you'd follow up on it with a theme of your choice (even chi-related...)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Barry,
I have posted many valid examples of possible tests..I can easily test to see if any of the above methods work with any reliability beyond any claims of self-described psychological effects.

---

Actually taishon, you haven't. What you have spent a lot of this thread doing is judging the people who offer these services. I am not sure what that is about.

For the record, I too have a hard time with the concept of paying lots of money for some of the services offered in this community. The truth is that there are people with a lot of reasons and intentions for the things they offer. Some do it out of ego. Some do not. Some really do seem to make a difference. Some do not. I only know what works for me and what doesn't. That is what I have to go by. And really, while science is supposed to be "objective," a lot of times, the people who do the studies are not. I really don't believe there is anything that is objective. That's not really how our world works.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

Jess

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

American Shaman;
I really do believe in the power of belief but I temper it with rational, healthy, non-delusionality. You should ask yourselves...which is the greater harm- actually caring about the world and using clear lenses or putting up a pretense of 'higher caring' that masks some really basic selfish wants for money and a need to belong to an 'exclusive' group ?

---

excellent, we have come full circle. Seeing the world is seeing it spiritually also.

My teacher's most important act was to break the rigid hold my rational mind had on how I lived my life and everything about it. I wish to give you this. I don't want to get all "Matrixy" on you or anything, but we all have questions of the validity of this reality.

It really didn't matter what I said, I could never answer your questions or fufill your need for comfort to your liking.

The truth is my friend, seeing more or experiencing the spiritual realm in waking life does not answer the questions we think it will, and most of the time it leaves us with more questions instead of enlightenment.

The realm of spirit and energy does not follow the same rules as the physical world, nor does the use of memory. I can raise a normal person's awareness and open their third eye enough for them to see auras, but unless I have them write a description of what they see, there is a good chance they will forget it. This has happened to me on many many journeys. At first realizing and experiencing the loss of such wonderful and special memories is jarring, throwing the rational mind in a tizzy. Its taken my body and mind a long time to accept these things.

As for what gives me the right to call myself a Shaman, I leave that question for the spirit realm. The spirit has told me to follow this path, so that is what I am doing. Did I mention that I work a full time job, have a little side business that has nothing to do with spirit, and work out a lot?

The spirit only told me to teach and heal after I signed up for a 6 unit electrical theory class, lol.

The overall question I am perceiving from this whole thread is: "Why does my heart disagree with my mind, and why does this knowledge not bring me comfort?'


This is just me following the energy/spirit,

Justin Bill Hunter-American Shaman

In regard to "chi" and acupuncture, I refer you to Simon Rich's delightful book "Free Range Chickens."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I accept your delightful use of "gulliblerati" to offset the otherwise biting tone of your post.

With regards to "chi" I beg to differ. Have you ever had acupuncture? If you have, you should know what happens when you chi it tapped. It's also clearly observed in the eye of people, where their spirit is clearly shining or dim, or a plant that is thriving or struggling. And in both cases, when the chi is low, dis-ease soon follows whether it be a "medical" illness, or an attack of insects that decide to bypass the plant with the stronger "chi".

More about this below.

---

Hey, it's not just this area where people are willing to believe anything anyone tells them without any proof; look at all the people who watch Fox news...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by natalie:

I believe it was American Shaman who wrote, " Even if you published a groundbreaking scientific proof of the existense of god that could be repeated..." To that I say, BRING IT ON! But alas, that is not going to happen. On the other hand, I guess there are millions of "open minded" people who will believe it anyway? Something is not quite fitting for me here.

Regarding acupuncture and chi: I had acupuncture treatments for several years. They worked really well for pain, but I never understood what they meant when they talked about chi, as in we'll remove this herb from your prescription because it is too cold for your chi??

I am relatively new to the area and to be honest, I am finding it shocking to see that the majority of people are so willing to believe in anything anyone tells them without proof of any kind, only "belief".

---

Actually a lot of these posts remind me of the Colbert report segment where they debate whether fox news is evil or stiupid;

1. Stupid: 'Well, Steve, I think those posters are STUPID because they continue to completly reject any rational scientific evidence that what they practice does nothing beyond simple psychological effects. Despite the overwhelming amount of studies that have been done contradicting any claims they make, they continue to reject any rational inquiries and wholly believe that what they do is better than anything conventional. Conclusion- they are STUPID"

2. Evil: "Steve..I completly disagree. no one can be THAT stupid and completly reject the mountain of evidence disagreeing with their claims. Their arguments, while irrational, contain complex circular references and devious specious points. Finally, they reap huge gobs of cash from vulnerable people without promising anything. Conclusion- they are EVIL"

BTW- this insulting post if aimed at those who have posted reasonable open replies.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Hey, it's not just this area where people are willing to believe anything anyone tells them without any proof; look at all the people who watch Fox news...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

Barry,
I have posted many valid examples of possible tests..I can easily test to see if any of the above methods work with any reliability beyond any claims of self-described psychological effects. ..

---

Sorry Taishon, but I haven't seen you state exactly what test that you want to do.

Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Here's the test I propose:

Get 10 "Energy Healers" to volunteer for the study.

Draw up a list of possible maladies that there is a consensus among the healers that they think their skills would be helpful with.

Solicit subjects for the study that are experiencing one or more of the maladies.

Review subject applications with healers to verify their appropriateness. Get at least 10 approved subjects.

For each subject, arrange a session with at least two energy healers to and a fake energy healer (placebo). Following each session, have the subject fill out a questionnaire stating how helpful the session was in treating their malady both directly after each session, and again 1 week later. Questionnaire will have both discreet (scale of 1 to 10) and descriptive evaluations of perceived help.

(Taishon, If you want to have some objective measurement of efficacy rather than self reporting, then you'll need to state exactly what you are going to test and how you going to do it and be prepared to follow through with it.)

Tabulate all questionnaire results and look for a statistical difference between the real energy healers and the fake one.

Post all results and the statistical summary information.

That's what I mean by asking you to "specify exactly what test you propose."

I do not see where you have stated this. If I've missed anything, please feel free to use our quote feature (or simple copy and paste) to point out anything I have missed.

And if you see that you haven't done so as of yet, please take this opportunity to do so. Be specific and be willing to follow through. State that you are now accepting applications for both subjects, healers and the fake healer role (or however you structure it), assuming you really want to "conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I'll be impressed if you respond in either of these ways:

1. You rise to the challenge and describe your proposed experiment and be willing to follow through if it can be arranged
2. You admit this is not possible, or at a bare minimum, that you are not able (for whatever reason) to do such an experiment with worthy rigor.

---

I'm not impressed yet.

Please don't evade the question once again, Taison. Have the courage to meet either of the conditions above. I'll be sending this to you via private email to be sure you get it.

Miles says, "Kathy, you literally threatened Taishon with blackmail today!"

I think he was referring to this:

"Taishon in case you haven't already unsubbed, I'm still asking 1) how you would construct a double-blind study for these fields, and 2) what is the effect you want to measure?

Remember you chided* me for not coming out and asking but instead saying it was impossible. Since then I have been asking.

*Actually, and mostly in private emails, you threw verbal battery acid in my face, if truth be told. Happy to quote here if you deny it."

The accusation of blackmail is a strange one. Blackmail is a threat of ruining someone's reputation--by telling a secret--if that person doesn't do what one wants them to do.

Well lets see if "blackmail" is what I'm threatening. If 1) what Taishon said to me is a secret that 2) deserves to be kept, and 3) if it will ruin his reputation as a fairminded science type to expose it, then--ok, blackmail. But he's already been pretty nasty publicly, no big secret there; his words do not deserve protection; and he still has supporters. Reputation intact with the believers. So...not blackmail, unless there's another definition that I'm missing.

I call it holding a person accountable. If Taishon were to deny that he said some horrible things to me, I would expose that to be untrue.

Blackmail? Miles?

(btw, my own Ph.D. was only gotten after demonstrably deep understanding of scientific investigation, including conducting one of my own for the dissertation.)

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

...
The accusation of blackmail is a strange one. Blackmail is a threat of ruining someone's reputation--by telling a secret--if that person doesn't do what one wants them to do.

Well lets see if "blackmail" is what I'm threatening. If 1) what Taishon said to me is a secret that deserves to be kept, and2) if it deserves to be kept...

---

Kathy, I'm going to have to side with Miles on this. Private communications are precisely that, private, and they deserve to remain so.

However, if you feel that Taishon violated our guideline of treating all Wacco members with respect in both public posts and private emails and you feel he should be censured for doing so, please contact me privately and include a copy of his email(s).

I will allow your public accusation of the character of his private emails. However, your phrase "Happy to quote here if you deny it" is ambiguous and could easily be interpreted as a threat. If taishon does not give his permission to post his private email, you may not do so, nor will I allow any further characterizations of those emails.

Thanks for that boundary-setting. I had not totally absorbed the part about private emails being off-limits. There has been enough nastiness to me from Taishon publicly that i probably didn't need to even go to the private stuff.

To Taishon and Miles, my apologies about what did indeed turn out to be a threat of wrondoing.

kp

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Kathy, I'm going to have to side with Miles on this. Private communications are precisely that, private, and they deserve to remain so.

However, if you feel that Taishon violated our guideline of treating all Wacco members with respect in both public posts and private emails and you feel he should be censured for doing so, please contact me privately and include a copy of his email(s).

I will allow your public accusation of the character of his private emails. However, your phrase "Happy to quote here if you deny it" is ambiguous and could easily be interpreted as a threat. If taishon does not give his permission to post his private email, you may not do so, nor will I allow any further characterizations of those emails.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Sorry Taishon, but I haven't seen you state exactly what test that you want to do.

Let me give you an example of what I mean:

Here's the test I propose:

Get 10 "Energy Healers" to volunteer for the study.

Draw up a list of possible maladies that there is a consensus among the healers that they think their skills would be helpful with.

Solicit subjects for the study that are experiencing one or more of the maladies.

Review subject applications with healers to verify their appropriateness. Get at least 10 approved subjects.

For each subject, arrange a session with at least two energy healers to and a fake energy healer (placebo). Following each session, have the subject fill out a questionnaire stating how helpful the session was in treating their malady both directly after each session, and again 1 week later. Questionnaire will have both discreet (scale of 1 to 10) and descriptive evaluations of perceived help.

(Taishon, If you want to have some objective measurement of efficacy rather than self reporting, then you'll need to state exactly what you are going to test and how you going to do it and be prepared to follow through with it.)

Tabulate all questionnaire results and look for a statistical difference between the real energy healers and the fake one.

Post all results and the statistical summary information.

That's what I mean by asking you to "specify exactly what test you propose."

I do not see where you have stated this. If I've missed anything, please feel free to use our quote feature (or simple copy and paste) to point out anything I have missed.

And if you see that you haven't done so as of yet, please take this opportunity to do so. Be specific and be willing to follow through. State that you are now accepting applications for both subjects, healers and the fake healer role (or however you structure it), assuming you really want to "conduct some double-blind experiments testing these disciplines"



I'm not impressed yet.

Please don't evade the question once again, Taison. Have the courage to meet either of the conditions above. I'll be sending this to you via private email to be sure you get it.

---

I could give a rat's a** if you are impressed or not. This last paragraph emphasizes why I want to check out this ridiculous thread. I am sick of repeating myself to those who don't pay attention. Besides the specific examples I've mentioned (I don't want take the energy to copy and paste or quote them since it really is up to you to carefully read my posts before you throw out accusations or insults or baits), let me outline it again;

1. I meet with the alternative energy practioner.
2. I interview the subject about what they claim they can do and/or what they claim the mechanism is.If they don't have a specific mechanism claim then I will just concentrate on what results they claim they can do.
3. If they don't claim anything beyond an inconsistent psychological placebo effect then its not worth testing and they shouldn't be charging gobs of cash. If they claim they can actually perform physically measurable healing, read minds, find water with their minds etc etc then there are many many valid tests to that can be set up.

Challenging me (in a baiting insulting way) to "develop a specific test" before I have interviewed the subject and we have come to an agreement about what a fair test is just that- challenging, baiting and not necessary. It totally depends on what they claim they can do and/or the mechanism they claim they use (energy manipulation, psychology etc).

You have consistently pulled out of context quotes from my posts for the apparent purpose of somehow showing that I "haven't thought this through" which is very hypocritical on your part.

Its a common tactic of speciously discrediting someone. Asking me to be more specific than I have is like asking me come up with specific dialogue, blocking etc for a play when I have yet to find a specific author to do an adaptation from. I can give you ideas based on general genre etc. but I need a specific book to give you more details.

If you don't get that after this post then either yer just being insultingly baiting (evil) or incapable of getting it (stupid) :0)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Kathy, I'm going to have to side with Miles on this. Private communications are precisely that, private, and they deserve to remain so.

However, if you feel that Taishon violated our guideline of treating all Wacco members with respect in both public posts and private emails and you feel he should be censured for doing so, please contact me privately and include a copy of his email(s).

I will allow your public accusation of the character of his private emails. However, your phrase "Happy to quote here if you deny it" is ambiguous and could easily be interpreted as a threat. If taishon does not give his permission to post his private email, you may not do so, nor will I allow any further characterizations of those emails.

---

Barry,
Thanx for protecting my rights. She just won't go away and I've decided to ignore her as much as possible (as much as I can annoy a pest that keeps nipping at my heels)

Yo Waccoons,

I just wrote the following before reading the most recent exchange between Barry, Kathy and Taishon, if you're not interested in a labourous recitation of the point Barry just made, skip to the last seven paragraphs, and if you're sick of me "driving it into the ground" stop reading!

First a comment about Taishon's style. Dude! Acidly disparaging those who bother you? How's that working out?! You make good points: read carefully, don't demand I lay it out for you when I've already done so, treat me with respect... All cool.

But when you sign out with, (and I'm paraphrasing here, this is my take on your writing) "You're all a bunch of assholes who are either evil or stupid, it has to be one or the other, take your pick!!!!"

Well, what's your point? ;-D Can't I be an overeducated, ignorant Evil Stupid Asshole? Please? Come on!!! Maybe I'm just a God Damned Socialist, which by definition encompasses all of the above...

Here's what I first wrote today:


Kathy,

Here's what I base my "blackmail" claim on: Actually, and mostly in private emails, you threw verbal battery acid in my face, if truth be told. Happy to quote here if you deny it."

I read that as a threat to publish Taishon's private email content, emails he sent to you, if he denies that he attacked you viciously in public on this thread, and privately in his emails.

Maybe you were just being flippant, but doing so in the context of the heat on this thread, I take you seriously. I'm guessing others, especially Taishon, do as well. But I'm only speaking for myself here.

One of the basic "rules" or netiquette on this site is that private emails are private, unless the writer has agreed to have them published. I don't see you asking in that sentence, I see you threatening. The threat is implied, not direct and open, but it's there. At least in my interpretation.

The key being, you're saying you would be happy to quote him here if he denies having attacked you.

Think of it from his perspective. He's engaged in an argument, he's angry, now someone he criticized says that "unless you admit you've gone over the line, that you've attacked me (which in the public posts of this thread are there for any reader to judge) I'm going to release all or some part of the private emails you sent."

Whether that is real blackmail, or some milder form of arm twisting, it's not cool. You're threatening to break the rule on this board of keeping the private, private. Aside from any other aspect of your challenge to Taishon.

Note I did state that I had no doubt, based on his public writing in this thread, that his private emails to you were most likely more forceful, derisive, containing attacks. But if you wish to complain about that, there's a process in place. Go to Barry or one of the other moderators, privately, and ask for help/intercession. "Outing" someone here and threatening to further expose them....as I wrote Taishon about a different form of emotional forcefulness, not an effective way to engender cooperation.

And your threat, or whatever it was, an offer?, surprised me, as your participation here has always been reasoned, respectful and diplomatic, with one other exception, that I address below.

As I see it, you, Barry, maybe some others, are pushing Taishon to produce a description of a possible study he proposes, or quit complaining. But attacking him for attacking you and threatening him with further "exposure"? How does that help?

Recently you got snippy, derisive and dismissive with me, over my illegal assertion of control over the Favorite Restaurant thread that I started three years ago. I was wrong to delete the "Mummy's Kitchen" review/advertisement. I've explained, as best I can without "outing" private communications, why I did it, why I thought it was the best option at the time.

But I wouldn't do it again. I'd go to Barry, privately and ask him to intercede. If he told me that he was not willing to do so, I would have to consider my options. But I would do my best to maintain the public/private wall of respect and personal privacy.

Unless I just wanted to go nuclear and blow myself out of this scene!? I consider all options, and their likely consequences when deciding how to comport myself socially.

I can't demand that everyone else do the same, I can't expect it. I can only hope that they/you do. And if I see a violation, I can point it out.

I have no expectation that anyone I criticize is going to welcome it, or like it. And I don't really like conflict (well to be truthful, I probably do when it is playful and still fun, not insulting or threatening for real, that's a fine line quite often) so I only criticize if I think it's an important issue.

On the other hand, I err on the side of disclosure over discretion. It's a fault of mine, but consciously chosen, my commitment to my concept of being honest and open. And when that tendency engenders conflict, I'm not afraid to defend myself, or to make the points I think are relevant and important.

Makes for an exciting life, not always a pleasant one!

Peace, Out,

Really, I mean BOTH!

(This should probably be on a "process" thread, rather than this "Scientific Proof or Disproof of the Spiritual Power of Human and "Other" Consciousenesses Intention" thread.

Can consciousness work through lack of intention? Who has an experiment to study that hypothesis?)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

3. If they don't claim anything beyond an inconsistent psychological placebo effect then its not worth testing and they shouldn't be charging gobs of cash. If they claim they can actually perform physically measurable healing, read minds, find water with their minds etc etc then there are many many valid tests to that can be set up.

---

So is this all really because you think that every "healer" shouldn't get paid for what they do or don't do? No one has made anyone go to a healer, and as long as they practice good, ethical business practices, shouldn't they be allowed to make their living?

I am unfortunate in that no matter what money I make as a shaman, I still have to work a full time day job that is not related to anything healing. right now I am a supervisor if you can believe that.

I experience scientific proof as a rational paridigm that someone believes, I find myself at odds to it since my own personal experiences and the things I have seen with my own eyes, touched with my hands, and known with my own mind are completely disregarded by anyone holding to a "scientific" belief system.

I also don't see the profit in trying to prove something to you indirectly, or for free. I question, why do you even care? What do you expect to gain if someone does have abilities that can be proven by science?

I am not in the business of telling people their future, healing them in any sort of way, or even slowing down a person's cycle of death. My business is awareness, to allow a person to access the spirit world easier, to better understand their future, and perhaps even see it. With a better lens, we can have a better understanding of what is happening and why. Most of the pain and misery we experience is self inflicted, and I will not stop a person from this, I merely allow them to undertand and see what they are doing to themselves, and gain control of the process.

I have responded to this thread not to argue, although I am a bit of a S*** stirrer, I responded because the spirit told me to.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by taishon:

I could give a rat's a** if you are impressed or not....
I am sick of repeating myself to those who don't pay attention....
(I don't want take the energy to copy and paste or quote them since it really is up to you to carefully read my posts before you throw out accusations or insults or baits) ...
Challenging me (in a baiting insulting way) ...
If you don't get that after this post then either yer just being insultingly baiting (evil) or incapable of getting it (stupid) :0)

---

You're sounding mighty touchy! I bet you would benefit from an energy healing session! :wink:

I asked you to "please describe an example of a condition that would be suitable to test and that you are ABLE AND WILLING to test."
The closest you've come to anything specific is "physically measurable healing, read minds, find water". As I mentioned before, I think dousers should be split off from this thread and I recommend you focus on that as the basis of your "experiments". I note that I have yet to see dousing offered in these pages nor any offers by mind readers.

On the other hand, there are plenty of "energy healers" in these parts. I don't know that any has claimed to provide "physically measurable healing". And did I miss the post by a astrologer who claimed to cure cancer??

And since licensed psychotherapists do not provide any "physically measurable healing" should they also not be "charging gobs of cash" for their services? (I imagine you might find some support for that one! :wink:)

So while you clearly have a rather unscientific axe to grind, I don't think you'll find any help here.

Before you take exception to my "unscientific" comment, let me point out that you clearly have an agenda to debunk these disciplines. That's not how a true scientist would go about it. They would be more coming from a place of "let's see if any of this stuff is actually effective". A small but important difference. The same goes for lots of what passes as real science, which is funded by companies that are placing large bets on the outcome of the study.

I'd love to see a study that compares research done, or financed, by a party with a (presumed) agenda and how often the "results" appear to be supportive of the agenda.

[IMG]file:///Users/eye/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]Friends--

Some miscellaneous responses to this thread, as a way of procrastinating on the work I'm supposed to be doing for our forthcoming show. In no order of importance:

1. [in response to Barry's post] >>>I could give a rat's a**...

I feel this is showing a degree of disrespect to the rat in question. Granted, it's a subjective reaction, but I'd feel personally violated if someone offered my own ass to Barry, unless we knew each other a lot better. Of course if this is with the rat's informed consent...

2. It's my impression that the initiator of this thread isn't coming from a place of objective scientific inquiry, but that he's out to prove a point, with the same zealotry as a faith-based evangelist, and that the "call" for subjects is at heart a hostile challenge. I don't know if that's the intent: that's just the impression I get from the posts. In any case, I can't imagine why any sane people would want to cooperate with someone who's convinced in advance that they're charlatans.

3. I think there's a lot of absurdity and opportunism in the realms of alternative healing and psychic services, but--

4. As regards healing: Often, people talking about the "placebo effect" use this term on the assumption that it's fake, that it somehow proves the illness was all in the mind of the subject. But my understanding of it, reinforced by the fact that it's a central factor in the design of medical experiments, is that it's accepted as a real phenomenon -- that in many cases, taking that little blue sugar pill can induce the body, through some complex psycho-physical response, to actual cures and physical improvements. Am I incorrect that this is an accepted fact in medical science? I would think, without believing in some occult power, that a faith healer's hands or a shaman's ritual could have at least the power of that little blue pill, and quite possibly more, depending on the subject's expectations.

5. To prove anything about dowsers, I'd think you'd have to collect a pretty large bunch of dowsers, followed by drilling a helluva lot of wells to see if they're right.

6. Even after all this discussion, I still haven't heard how a healing experiment could be designed scientifically. If I'm too dumb to understand it, then don't try. But leaving that aside, to prove something about healers you'd have to find a lot of healers who trust the motives of the study and a big lot of sick people, to allow for all the variables. I doubt that's going to happen through a Wacco post.

But life will go on, nevertheless, in all its absurdity.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

*

As always, I appreciate the wit and wisdom of Conrad's offerings on Waccobb. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to dispel a popular myth about "the placebo effect."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

4. As regards healing: Often, people talking about the "placebo effect" use this term on the assumption that it's fake, that it somehow proves the illness was all in the mind of the subject. But my understanding of it, reinforced by the fact that it's a central factor in the design of medical experiments, is that it's accepted as a real phenomenon -- that in many cases, taking that little blue sugar pill can induce the body, through some complex psycho-physical response, to actual cures and physical improvements. Am I incorrect that this is an accepted fact in medical science?

---

That's not quite right Conrad. First of all, the blue pill is Viagra, and it's no placebo. :-)

This from an article by someone better informed than myself: "The reason for using a placebo control is that the benefits from taking medications are not always due to the drug itself. These benefits are called “placebo effects.” An example is when an investigator’s enthusiasm about a new medication sometimes influences the patient’s response." [end quote]

The "placebo effect" does not suggest there is some psycho-physical juju at work causing mysterious healings that defy standard medical understanding. The placebo is the desire for the subject of a study to want to please the people running the study. It could be called "the good boy" effect and it would be more descriptive. It most often pops up in difficult to measure issues such a level of pain. A person who actually took a pill will want to please and so will report that a pain is a "level 4" rather than a "level 6" that might be reported by a "control" person who was given no treatment at all. That's why a good study contains BOTH controls and placebos as well as those who receive active treatment. It could easily be said there is no such thing as a placebo effect and there are numerous published articles to that effect.

Therefore, non scientific treatments, such as homeopathic "remedies" that contain no active medicine do not work better than nothing, but the person taking them may report they work better than nothing.

Placebo is NOT a healing modality. It's a reporting error.

-Jeff

I've been checking in on this thread occasionally. It's of particular interest to me because I'm an astrologer. I am a member of two astrological research associations and there is much debate within that community as to whether astrology can be scientifically proven. I am of the camp that feels it may never withstand the gold standard of research for many reasons. It is my experience and that of my clients, that it works most of the time. In particular, the psychological brand of astrology that addresses underlying character traits and their evolution through time has been quite helpful for others. It is also possible to see conditions of early upbringing, career, health, personality, communication style, relationships, etc. As for prediction, an infinity of possibilities exists for nearly every astrological indicator and it is a very tricky art, one that requires a great deal of skill and is dependent upon the practitioner's level of perception. The key, I believe, to understanding astrology's effectiveness is to be found in the experience of synchronicity. When our solar system (and probably others) with all of its planets, asteroids, and nearby stars come into a certain, very complicated alignment, events are certain to happen. The nature of the event is dependent upon the client's character, culture, lifestyle, past events, and free will. Taking all of those variables into account in a research situation is virtually impossible. However, some research of note has taken place. I don't have time now to look that up, but I'm sure some people would be very interested in it.

I do agree with you, Barry, that testimonials are the most reliable sources of information when choosing a practitioner of any type. Also, it has been shown that many indigenous shamans use charlatan's devices to create the placebo effect. Nevertheless, they can be very effective, as is the placebo effect. John of God, though, falls into a different category because he actually uses a scalpel and opens the skin. He removes cancers with his bare hands. Stanley Krippner, with whom I've studied and conversed, has conducted research on John of God and tested the tissue which turned out to have come from the affected party. I don't know if and where that research is published, but I'm feeling motivated to inquire. I understand that he is particularly effective in healing Brazilian people due to the fact that their culture supports a strong belief in psychic surgery. This particular aspect of his healing, again, goes to the placebo effect. A great deal of research has been conducted on the effects of various "energetic" healing systems with measurable physical results. Nevertheless, I am also of the belief that the psyche sets up health conditions, even cancer, though environmental and genetic factors are important contributing causes. I like to believe that most health afflictions are opportunities for personal and spiritual growth that might not take place otherwise. Even with health conditions though, the multitude of contributing factors and the incredible complexity of the body system make thorough scientific investigations difficult because traditional science does not understand the body and many subtleties cannot be measured.

That said, IMHO, the proof is in the testimonials. If it works -- people -- go for it! Science is a fledgling endeavor.

Namaste...

The work of Andrew F. Weil is related to these issues, or so I hear. I have not read his recent books, but I've seen his PBS lecture on diet and exercise a few years ago, (Which unfortunately had little affect on my lifestyle, but at least I know fully well how I'm contributing to my own demise! We picks our choices and takes our chances on this spinning wheel.)

I recommend his, The Natural Mind, to anyone interested in issues surrounding drug use, changes in consciousness, the interaction of the body and mind (what a tired old, inaccurate and limited dichotomy that is) with drugs, and vice versa.

In his newer work he asserts an ability of the mind to heal the body. So when it comes to discussing placebo or "the good boy", effect, and forms of "healing" which do not have empirically provable mechanisms easily accessible to mainstream funded science, let alone unfunded independents like Taishon, I understand his work has things to say about all that.

Also I have seen him being slammed/slimed on the internet for being woo and therefore not reputable.

Without having read his work on self-healing, I can't fully endorse him. Or pan him. But he's one of the more renowned commentators on these matters. He is an allopathic doctor who teaches medicine at a university, as well as lecturing and writing for a popular audience.

If anyone has read his recent work, who also maintains a skeptical rationalist attitude on such matters, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about his ideas. And by skeptical rationalist I include being skeptical of rationalism.

Great posts Conrad and Jeff.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

The work of Andrew F. Weil is related to these issues, or so I hear. ...

---

Thanks Miles. There is something about all of this that actually is measurable, to some degree, and that's stress levels. It's well proven that stress affects health in ways both positive and negative. "Hands on" or even "hands off" methods that result in lower stress levels in the patient can certainly help a "true believer" feel better, and that could result in lower stress which could result in a positive outcome. It's easy to see that a skeptic would be less likely to benefit from such treatments.

I think the bottom line to a lot of Weil's work boils down to that. He addresses lots of other things to because he ... (drum roll please) sells and endorses "nutritional supplements." Sorry to get your hopes up.

-Jeff

A friend gave me a copy of this (don't know the author) but thought it was worth sharing to this thread that doesn't seem to end........

'REALITY" is what we take to be true.....
What we take to be true is what we believe......
What we believe is based upon our perceptions......
What we perceive depends on what we look for.....
What we look for depends upon what we think.....
What we think depends upon what we perceive.....
What we perceive is what we believe......
What we believe determines what we take to be true......
What we take to be true is our reality.....
So....We create our own reality......

This thread is certainly quite interesting, and has been a great chance for me to come out of my shell. I think I have hidden myself for far too long because of my inability to prove or overcome rational questioning. If anyone would doubt me or the things I see or think, I would shut down.

Thank you Taishon for sharing your truth, as it has helped me solidify my own truth and purpose for being here. I look forward to meeting you in person at some of my little chats. May you find the ability to forgive me for my obnoxoiusnes.

Justin Hunter -American Shaman

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by American Shaman:

This thread is certainly quite interesting, and has been a great chance for me to come out of my shell. I think I have hidden myself for far too long because of my inability to prove or overcome rational questioning. If anyone would doubt me or the things I see or think, I would shut down.

Thank you Taishon for sharing your truth, as it has helped me solidify my own truth and purpose for being here. I look forward to meeting you in person at some of my little chats. May you find the ability to forgive me for my obnoxoiusnes.

Justin Hunter -American Shaman

---

Great perspective, Justin. Occasionally we have posters on some of these threads mention that they're not sure they can hold their own in a discussion. (Clearly some of us have proven we're not shy enough to worry about that :thumbsup:) but I'm really glad when people are willing to contribute and engage. From your comment to Taishon, exactly the right thing happened. For me, seeing reactions to what I've posted, as well as just the extra insight I get into my own thoughts by trying to express them, is the whole point of participation. You haven't seemed to "shut down" in the face of challenges - that's great. And without commenting on whether you in particular have been obnoxious, I'm an advocate of being a bit obnoxious when it's appropriate! I think we can still do that within the bounds of this "conscious community" Barry's tried to establish.

I have other information from studies on placebos that differ from Jeff's opinion. It's not all or nothing, black or white. For me, life is lived in the grey zones. Our minds are very powerful and how we take in others opinions as truth can shape our lives...as is the case with young children who are like sponges and often form their lifes out of similar patterns of their parents, not necessary the truth of the matter. It's not necessarily about pleasing their parents though in some cases it could be...it's the journey of discovering who they are and individuating through experience. Placebos are also powerful in the understanding of effect of our thoughts.

Placebo effects can arise not only from a conscious belief in a drug but also from subconscious associations between recovery and the experience of being treated—from the pinch of a shot to a doctor’s white coat. Such subliminal conditioning can control bodily processes of which we are unaware, such as immune responses and the release of hormones.

Researchers have decoded some of the biology of placebo responses, demonstrating that they stem from active processes in the brain
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...re-in-the-mind

We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Fabrizio Benedetti from University of Turin says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600

Tor Wager, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, has probably done the definitive brain imaging study. His experiment was brutally straightforward: he gave college students electrical shocks while they were stuck in an fMRI machine. Half of the people were then supplied with a fake pain-relieving cream. Even though the cream had no analgesic properties - it was just a hand moisturizer - people given the pretend cream said the shocks were significantly less painful. The placebo effect eased their suffering. Wager then imaged the specific parts of the brain that controlled this psychological process. He discovered that the placebo effect depended on the prefrontal cortex, the center of "rational," conscious thought. When people were told that they'd just received a pain-relieving cream, their frontal lobes responded by inhibiting the activity of the emotional brain areas (like the insula) that normally respond to pain. Because people expected to experience less pain, they ended up experiencing less pain. https://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2008...acebo_effe.php

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

As always, I appreciate the wit and wisdom of Conrad's offerings on Waccobb. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to dispel a popular myth about "the placebo effect."



That's not quite right Conrad. First of all, the blue pill is Viagra, and it's no placebo. :-)

This from an article by someone better informed than myself: "The reason for using a placebo control is that the benefits from taking medications are not always due to the drug itself. These benefits are called “placebo effects.” An example is when an investigator’s enthusiasm about a new medication sometimes influences the patient’s response." [end quote]

The "placebo effect" does not suggest there is some psycho-physical juju at work causing mysterious healings that defy standard medical understanding. The placebo is the desire for the subject of a study to want to please the people running the study. It could be called "the good boy" effect and it would be more descriptive. It most often pops up in difficult to measure issues such a level of pain. A person who actually took a pill will want to please and so will report that a pain is a "level 4" rather than a "level 6" that might be reported by a "control" person who was given no treatment at all. That's why a good study contains BOTH controls and placebos as well as those who receive active treatment. It could easily be said there is no such thing as a placebo effect and there are numerous published articles to that effect.

Therefore, non scientific treatments, such as homeopathic "remedies" that contain no active medicine do not work better than nothing, but the person taking them may report they work better than nothing.

Placebo is NOT a healing modality. It's a reporting error.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

That's not quite right Conrad. First of all, the blue pill is Viagra, and it's no placebo. :-)

Dang, that's why that control group got out of control!

This from an article by someone better informed than myself: "The reason for using a placebo control is that the benefits from taking medications are not always due to the drug itself. These benefits are called ìplacebo effects.î An example is when an investigatorís enthusiasm about a new medication sometimes influences the patientís response." [end quote]

The placebo is the desire for the subject of a study to want to please the people running the study. It could be called "the good boy" effect and it would be more descriptive. It most often pops up in difficult to measure issues such a level of pain. A person who actually took a pill will want to please and so will report that a pain is a "level 4" rather than a "level 6" that might be reported by a "control" person who was given no treatment at all. That's why a good study contains BOTH controls and placebos as well as those who receive active treatment. It could easily be said there is no such thing as a placebo effect and there are numerous published articles to that effect.

---

Dear Jeff—

This is interesting. I don't have time to go beyond reading up on it in Wikipedia. That source summarizes a number of studies that confirm what you say, but it hardly seems to be a cut-and-dried case. Your example of a "good boy" effect is relevant to the kind of study you describe, but there seem to be other sorts of studies that have objective, readable results, e.g. hypertension. Granted, that's shown to be affected by anxiety, and obviously the brain has pretty tight agreements with the endocrine system, etc. But that and other conditions *are* measurable without asking the patient how he feels.

My understanding, from my very scant reading, is that most of the studies of the placebo effect relate to its efficacy as a prescription in itself. A related question is exactly what "statistical significance" means: if placebos show no higher incidence of significant effects in a sample group than a control group doing without, that's not the same as saying there are *no* individual effects either in the sample group or in the control group, or that in individuals who showed measurable improvement it was definitely not the result of a placebo inducing the brain to induce the body to heal itself. It would only show that a placebo isn't a very reliable prescription.

Is the case against placebo effect so well established that no medical research is currently using them except where the patient's subjective judgement enters in? That would indicate too, that the long-reported effects of "patient's will to live," "positive attitude," "doctor's manner," etc., are just myth. And that *any* spontaneous self-curing of the body without the use of drugs or surgery is, and has always been, total illusion.

Interesting issues. I'm glad I don't have to decide tomorrow.

Cheers—
Conrad

"Andrew F. Weil ... i have seen him being slammed ... for being woo and therefore not reputable. "
I just have to ask ... what does "woo" mean in this sentence?
Thanks Miles....

Artaloha,

When I come across an unfamiliar word or phrase on the internet now days, I google it. In fact with the new version of waccobb.net, when I highlight and right click on something, I have the immediate option of doing a google search.

This time I'll do the two words, you've asked me about, for you. Then you're on your own!

Ojala

Woo, it's the first option.


Google, it's easy, convenient and does not require that you ask someone else to help you!

If after googling you still are not sure, I'm then happy to clarify.

But we live in a modern world of wonders, and doing your own research is just a matter of a few clicks.

But not always, on FB last night my oldest friend used the Latin for, "Go and sin no more." I wasn't raised Catholic and the phrase was unfamiliar to me. After googling to no avail, I wrote back and asked him. This morning the answer was waiting for me.

The internet, boon to humanity or total time suck?

Both!

Cheers,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Artaloha:

"Andrew F. Weil ... i have seen him being slammed ... for being woo and therefore not reputable. "
I just have to ask ... what does "woo" mean in this sentence?
Thanks Miles....

---

The term I have heard is woo-woo. I don't know if it is spelled correctly, as I have only heard it used in stories coming from people that worked at a place called "ions" Institute of noetic science(some people might consider this organization a little woo-woo).

the term is a way to describe something that is a little too out there: Josh started wearing purple stretch pants, eating raw, and seeing an aura cleanser this week, he sure is getting woo-woo.

Mainly you would use it in a slightly condescending way, but its used mostly by people that are already a little out of mainstream.