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

[taishon]

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.

[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

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.

[taishon]

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.

[Sciguy]

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

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.

[stuartdole]

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!

[SusanC]

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

[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.

[natalie]

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.

[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

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.

[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.

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

[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

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.

[taishon]

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.

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

[kpage9]

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

[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.

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.

[taishon]

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.

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.

[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)

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

[kpage9]

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

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)

[kpage9]

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'."

[Insights]

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

[podfish]

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.

[sharingwisdom]

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.

[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

[taishon]

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

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

[stuartdole]

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

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

[American Shaman]

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.

[American Shaman]

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

[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 ?

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

[podfish]

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.

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.

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.

[kpage9]

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

[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. 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

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 ?