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

[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 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.

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. ...

[podfish]

...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!!!

[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:

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:

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.

[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".

[taishon]

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.

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.

[kpage9]

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?

[podfish]

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....

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

?? didn't see -that- coming.

["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.

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!

[Barry]

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.

[taishon]

See embedded reply;

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!

[taishon]

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)

["Mad" Miles]

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,

[podfish]

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...)

[jesswolfe]

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

[American Shaman]

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

[Sara S]

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

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.

[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...

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".

[taishon]

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.

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...

[Barry]

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"

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.

[kpage9]

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

[Barry]

...
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.

[kpage9]

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

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.

[taishon]

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)

[taishon]

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)

["Mad" Miles]

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?)

[American Shaman]

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.

[Barry]

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!

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! )

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.

[theindependenteye]

[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

*

[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."

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

[starlite]

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...