Skeptics and skeptic websites and talk don't interest me particularly.
In part, it's because skeptics are often preaching to the choir. I understand the need for extraordinary claims to be backed by evidence and a willingness to change one's beliefs based if evidence arrives. The debunking of homeopathy, UFO's, creationism and the like are uninteresting because I already understand why these hypotheses are false. I also don't enjoy arguing with people over their personal beliefs in the above held topics (in public, anyway) so the need to internalize the argument is largely useless. I can get by with understanding what is false, and why, and not think much along those lines because there is nothing interesting going on there.
The other reason skeptic talk doesn't interest me is that it tends to be dismissive. Take religion for example. I am facinated by religion. It's a very human activity, and there are very few cultures (if any) on this planet that don't have some sort of binding central myth. I find that by studying religion and engaging in religious activities I am a better person, with greater understanding and a greater well-being. Many skeptics dismiss religion. I don't mean to say they actively bash religious beliefs and activities (although sometimes they do) but they tend to dismiss it as something to be avoided.
Why is that? I find that particularly facinating. Here we have this entirely human activity, so central to the lives of so many people, and while often destructive it is just as often creative, and a skeptic will avoid taking part. Is it because religion has burned them in some way? Is it because they can't rationalize religious activities and therefore it is meaningless? And then sometimes I wonder if there isn't a sort of religion in rationality...but I won't go that direction. I will say that human existence is rather amazing and religion is part of that. There is so much interesting stuff happening in religion, worthy of investigation not just to "show how wrong it is".
It seems to me that when a skeptical person is shown evidence that, for example, auras do not exist in the physical energetic sense, they will do either one of two things. A, they will conclude there is nothing interesting to investigate in people who do individual "aural work", or B they will actively talk and type and podcast how much of a bunch of hooey aural work really is. Both endings have a real dismissive tone. I say, lets look at this more closely. There doesn't seem to be this thing called aural energy which sits around a person and can be manipulated by thought. However, this mental excercise has some interesting results, it seems the thought process of imagining this field around oneself and manipulating it changes the way the person reacts to reality, and THAT is very interesting.
"But it's /just/ the placebo effect".
Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.
Which is why I tend to hang out with "New Agers" more than Skeptics. The weird stuff has interesting results.
~Kai
:mittens:
reminds me of a tangental anecdote from yesterday-
was in a car with someone. As a way of killing time, I come up with abbreviations for the car license plates around me. Anyway I noticed this one license plate in front of us, EPS, stopped at a stop sign right next to a car with another EPS license plate. I made a note of it, "check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
the skeptic in the car said "Well it's not that unlikely really."
How is that not unlikely?
Well they print big batches of license plates at the same time, and the local DMV probably approves them in batches, so it's not unusual that two cars purchased in the same city at the same time would have the same license plate letters.
Okay, I said, but what are the odds that we'd witness this exact moment when those two cars registered on the same day happen to be side by side? Note I'm not attributing any significance to this moment, just pointing out how unlikely it is and how cool it is that we were here to see it.
And the skeptic said Well it's not that unlikely.
I was tempted to debate that point, but all I was saying was Hey, we just witnessed an odd moment of synchronicity. To totally dismiss that seems kind of ... seems kind of boring to me.
that's not quite the right word, "boring"
but it seems to me like in a subjective universe, we're in charge of investing meaning into things on an individual level. If we do that while armed with both rational thought and a sense of spirituality, we can live in a very beautiful universe.
The skeptic seemed quite tuned into defeating meaning. Telling me that this event was meaningless, "just random chance", as if the idea that this synch emerged from happenstance makes it any less meaningful (to me).
In place of "boring", how about "wet-blanketly", "weaksauce", or "emotionally cheap"? Fuck 'em.
Also, linky:
http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
Rationalixm, as the belief that all actions have a rational basis --or at least everything
I'm known to do-- has a rational basis, sounds more like a fetish: "I must rationalize my behavior. Always."
Or not. IDK.
Kai: cool example. Aura phenomena are kind of my interest, too.
Of especial interest: dickhead skeptics aren't the only kind of skeptic, and by no means the only form of skepticism!
Quote
"Academic" or "Cartesian" Skeptics: followers of Plato's Academy.
Reason is paramount. We cannot know anything about the future, or anything about the contents of someone else's mind, or anything about the past, or anything at all about the "external world."
"Epistemist" Skeptics
We CAN know about the future, we can know about the contents of someone else's mind, or about the past, or about the "external world."
"Pyrrhonian" Skeptics
Inquiry is paramount, and a skeptic is an inquirer. Our position is not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry. For example, We do not believe in the reality of a god, but neither do we deny it. Nor do we say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Instead we say of god, "I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out."
...
Kurtzian Skepticism.
Old school CSICOP skepticism doesn't seem to fall under any of the above three classifications. Kurtzian Skepticism is more based on a battle between light and darkness, where Skeptics know the truth about religion, about the paranormal, cryptozoology, etc., and they must fight against hoards of credulous people who 'worship' ignorance, and who threaten to bring down civilization and trigger a new dark age.
....
Both sides of the UFO/Paranormal debate seem to hate the Pyrrhonian Skeptics. For example, JREF and online CSICOP people instantly assume that Pyrrhonians are the enemy, and then they leap to attack (after all, Pyrrhonians don't deny Yeti or alien visitation or PSI, so we're obviously on the side of the disgusting "woo-woos.") At the same time, the UFO-believers usually see Pyrrhonians as closed minded debunkers who insist on questioning all their evidence!
:)
On the other hand, most scientists seem to be Pyrrhonians. That's why the typical member of a skeptical organization is NOT a professional scientist. That's why large numbers of scientists do NOT flock to Kurtzian-dominated skeptic organizations (and why Truzzi loudly objected to skeptical disbelief when was CSICOP first was forming, then dropped out in disgust.)
So... we have dogmatists who are sure that we're being visited by aliens, versus dogmatists who are certain that we're not: it appears to me that neither side witholds their belief before studying the evidence (or witholds their disbelief.) Neither side is genuinely curious about whether we're being visited or not. Neither side takes an unprejudiced look at the evidence, since first they'd have to admit that they don't already know the truth.
http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html
:mittens: to Kai.
That seems about right. The person you were in a car with heard that the two license plates were nearly the same, knew how that could happen with a higher probability than requiring a supernatural hypothesis, and thus finding the explanation physical dismissed it as interesting.
I've heard it said before, that if you give a kid a weird looking bug to look at, they'll follow it around, curious, watching, wondering "What is that?", but as soon as you tell them what it is, they go "Oh." and lose interest.
It seems to me that skeptics /want/ to find something supernatural in the universe. They're looking actively through the process of falsification. Over my lifetime, searching for the supernatural and finding none could make me jaded to finding meaning in the universe. If that were so, as soon as I found out something isn't supernatural I would loose interest.
The other thing is the reality filter continuum between Cognitive Bias and Syncronicity. The person you were talking to seems to be mired in a cognitive bias filter, that is, if something isn't immediately connected causally, any amount of meaning that could be gained from that connection is dismissed as preconceptions of the mind, useless, meaningless. You seemed to be working from a syncronistic filter, that is, although you understood the license plate numbers were probably not causally connected, you found the connection between the two interesting and exciting. "Well, it's not //that/ unlikely." or "It is /just/ placebo effect." as opposed to "This syncronistic event is interesting and exciting to me." or "What's going on here makes me extremely curious."
The former was dismissive and not curious. You were interested and excited and curious. I wonder if skepticism in large amounts kills curiosity. I'm not saying that working under a Cognitive Bias filter is bad/wrong; sometimes that focus is needed, especially when using the scientific method. Much of the time however I would rather operate under the Syncronicity filter, because it's far more meaningful, exciting and interesting.
So yes, skeptics are uninteresting, dcue to what seems to be a lack of curiosity and imaginitiveness. Antero Alli would call this the "Church of Rationality", I think, being stuck in one's own rational model that you can't even imagine reality being different.
I think random non causally connect events happening together are very interesting. Why is apparent randomness often seen as defeating?
@yhnmzw: I like the concept of Pyrrhonian Skepticism. I think of myself as a seeker, a very interested seeker, interested in everything and anything. Also the attitude of "I personally do not know at the moment but am trying to find out" is a very exciting one. This is the attitude of an explorer or adventurer, of a person who is interested and interesting.
I think the Cartesian and Epistemist Skeptics sound largely uninteresting but not particularly dangerous. Kurtzian Skepticism sounds quite dangerous, as it screams of Atheistic Materialism based Utopianism. And utopianism in any context is dangerous.
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 06:05:00 PM
I like the concept of Pyrrhonian Skepticism. I think of myself as a seeker, a very interested seeker, interested in everything and anything. Also the attitude of "I personally do not know at the moment but am trying to find out" is a very exciting one. This is the attitude of an explorer or adventurer, of a person who is interested and interesting.
yes, this.
This is what I wanted to say. :D
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
It is?
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
Sounds to me like trading one flat, boring, angry perspective for another. I'd rather run around being curious and having fun instead of grumping my way through life.
I agree about "skeptic" != "scientist", I'm a physicist and most people I know in the field aren't particularly skeptic in the CSICOP sense, as far as I've noticed. There is a difference between being rational and actively looking for things to disbelieve. Then again, most scientists are probably too caught up in what they're doing to care about debunking stuff.
In my experience describing yourself as a "skeptic" (OK, I only know a few who do) mostly means you're interested in watching youtube videos of Richard Dawkins.
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on August 24, 2009, 02:31:34 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
Sounds to me like trading one flat, boring, angry perspective for another. I'd rather run around being curious and having fun instead of grumping my way through life.
:crankey:
The person who delves into something to figure out what is actually going on, even if it is dismissive of the original claim, even if it hurts peoples feelings is the curious one... the one who excepts nonsense as truth without investigation is the one who is not curious.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 24, 2009, 03:58:16 AM
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on August 24, 2009, 02:31:34 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
Sounds to me like trading one flat, boring, angry perspective for another. I'd rather run around being curious and having fun instead of grumping my way through life.
:crankey:
Do you enjoy the grumping? If you do, that's your preference.
Great thread, Kai.
I see where you're coming from, but I still can't stand new agers...
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 05:21:19 AM
The person who delves into something to figure out what is actually going on, even if it is dismissive of the original claim, even if it hurts peoples feelings is the curious one... the one who excepts nonsense as truth without investigation is the one who is not curious.
...And this is why. Spirituality is often just another word for self-delusion, or diversion.
However, I recognize that sometimes self-delusion is necessary in order to cope with issues that are too much to bear.
And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview. For me skepticism is mostly an internal thing--I just want to be as delusion-free as I can afford to be.
Quote from: nurbldoff on August 24, 2009, 02:59:31 AM
There is a difference between being rational and actively looking for things to disbelieve.
Well said.
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
Skeptics and skeptic websites and talk don't interest me particularly.
In part, it's because skeptics are often preaching to the choir. I understand the need for extraordinary claims to be backed by evidence and a willingness to change one's beliefs based if evidence arrives. The debunking of homeopathy, UFO's, creationism and the like are uninteresting because I already understand why these hypotheses are false. I also don't enjoy arguing with people over their personal beliefs in the above held topics (in public, anyway) so the need to internalize the argument is largely useless. I can get by with understanding what is false, and why, and not think much along those lines because there is nothing interesting going on there.
I honestly don't have problems with anyone's beliefs until they 1) want to push those beliefs as public policy 2) they feel the need to tell me about those beliefs in detail. I never pass up a chance to tell someone that they are full of shit. I'll have to agree with your statement about preaching to the choir though. Skeptics have done a good job of pushing back on creationism, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, chiropractors, psychics, etc. They have done a lot of good in the last 20 years that can't easily be dismissed. ;)
QuoteThe other reason skeptic talk doesn't interest me is that it tends to be dismissive. Take religion for example. I am fascinated by religion. It's a very human activity, and there are very few cultures (if any) on this planet that don't have some sort of binding central myth. I find that by studying religion and engaging in religious activities I am a better person, with greater understanding and a greater well-being. Many skeptics dismiss religion. I don't mean to say they actively bash religious beliefs and activities (although sometimes they do) but they tend to dismiss it as something to be avoided.
Why is that? I find that particularly fascinating. Here we have this entirely human activity, so central to the lives of so many people, and while often destructive it is just as often creative, and a skeptic will avoid taking part. Is it because religion has burned them in some way? Is it because they can't rationalize religious activities and therefore it is meaningless? And then sometimes I wonder if there isn't a sort of religion in rationality...but I won't go that direction. I will say that human existence is rather amazing and religion is part of that. There is so much interesting stuff happening in religion, worthy of investigation not just to "show how wrong it is".
Honestly, the reason that I usually dismiss religion is because the religion part of my brain doesn't really work like it does in most other humans. The only times that I can remember have anything close to a religious experience is listening to really good music. None of the other techniques seem to work for me. However I am fascinated about why other people believe like they do. That's why I enjoy reading Dennett and Shermer (except when it comes to politics) and even Karl Giberson. I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins and have only watched a handful of clips of him on Youtube. I'm not really that interested in what he has to say about religion. (I like his biology stuff though.)
QuoteIt seems to me that when a skeptical person is shown evidence that, for example, auras do not exist in the physical energetic sense, they will do either one of two things. A, they will conclude there is nothing interesting to investigate in people who do individual "aural work", or B they will actively talk and type and podcast how much of a bunch of hooey aural work really is. Both endings have a real dismissive tone. I say, lets look at this more closely. There doesn't seem to be this thing called aural energy which sits around a person and can be manipulated by thought. However, this mental exercise has some interesting results, it seems the thought process of imagining this field around oneself and manipulating it changes the way the person reacts to reality, and THAT is very interesting.
It's interesting and useful bullshit. What else do you want me to say? I'm glad that you realize that it is all in your head because there are enough True Believers that will either swallow the bullshit down whole without taking a sniff first or will use New Ageish words to con other people out of money. Neither of these are acceptable.
Quote"But it's /just/ the placebo effect".
Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.
Which is why I tend to hang out with "New Agers" more than Skeptics. The weird stuff has interesting results.
~Kai
I've never been dismissive about the placebo effect. It's interesting to see how we can mindfuck ourselves. We just have to take a step back every once in awhile and remind ourselves that this isn't real. Don't drink your own jenkem. There's also the fact that certain alternative practices can be harmful (http://whatstheharm.net/). They can give you all of the side effects without any of the positive benefits.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 24, 2009, 09:18:25 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
Skeptics and skeptic websites and talk don't interest me particularly.
In part, it's because skeptics are often preaching to the choir. I understand the need for extraordinary claims to be backed by evidence and a willingness to change one's beliefs based if evidence arrives. The debunking of homeopathy, UFO's, creationism and the like are uninteresting because I already understand why these hypotheses are false. I also don't enjoy arguing with people over their personal beliefs in the above held topics (in public, anyway) so the need to internalize the argument is largely useless. I can get by with understanding what is false, and why, and not think much along those lines because there is nothing interesting going on there.
I honestly don't have problems with anyone's beliefs until they 1) want to push those beliefs as public policy 2) they feel the need to tell me about those beliefs in detail. I never pass up a chance to tell someone that they are full of shit. I'll have to agree with your statement about preaching to the choir though. Skeptics have done a good job of pushing back on creationism, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, chiropractors, psychics, etc. They have done a lot of good in the last 20 years that can't easily be dismissed. ;)
I don't mind "skeptics" debunking things, ie doing public education work. It just doesn't interest me. Like I said, preaching to the choir. If I've heard evidence to falsify for example, homeopathy, then I don't need to hear that same evidence over and over. The other thing I would note is, under the idea of Pyrronean skepticism, these people aren't really skeptics at all, they're educators. To be a skeptic you have to suspend judgment on some topic. Debunking isn't suspending judgment.
QuoteQuoteThe other reason skeptic talk doesn't interest me is that it tends to be dismissive. Take religion for example. I am fascinated by religion. It's a very human activity, and there are very few cultures (if any) on this planet that don't have some sort of binding central myth. I find that by studying religion and engaging in religious activities I am a better person, with greater understanding and a greater well-being. Many skeptics dismiss religion. I don't mean to say they actively bash religious beliefs and activities (although sometimes they do) but they tend to dismiss it as something to be avoided.
Why is that? I find that particularly fascinating. Here we have this entirely human activity, so central to the lives of so many people, and while often destructive it is just as often creative, and a skeptic will avoid taking part. Is it because religion has burned them in some way? Is it because they can't rationalize religious activities and therefore it is meaningless? And then sometimes I wonder if there isn't a sort of religion in rationality...but I won't go that direction. I will say that human existence is rather amazing and religion is part of that. There is so much interesting stuff happening in religion, worthy of investigation not just to "show how wrong it is".
Honestly, the reason that I usually dismiss religion is because the religion part of my brain doesn't really work like it does in most other humans. The only times that I can remember have anything close to a religious experience is listening to really good music. None of the other techniques seem to work for me. However I am fascinated about why other people believe like they do. That's why I enjoy reading Dennett and Shermer (except when it comes to politics) and even Karl Giberson. I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins and have only watched a handful of clips of him on Youtube. I'm not really that interested in what he has to say about religion. (I like his biology stuff though.)
I have religious experiences all the time, but then again I seek them out actively. Most of the time not in some special edifice either. :) If you accept ecology on a global scale it's not very hard to find yourself in the throws of a mystic numinous experience of connectedness.
QuoteQuoteIt seems to me that when a skeptical person is shown evidence that, for example, auras do not exist in the physical energetic sense, they will do either one of two things. A, they will conclude there is nothing interesting to investigate in people who do individual "aural work", or B they will actively talk and type and podcast how much of a bunch of hooey aural work really is. Both endings have a real dismissive tone. I say, lets look at this more closely. There doesn't seem to be this thing called aural energy which sits around a person and can be manipulated by thought. However, this mental exercise has some interesting results, it seems the thought process of imagining this field around oneself and manipulating it changes the way the person reacts to reality, and THAT is very interesting.
It's interesting and useful bullshit. What else do you want me to say? I'm glad that you realize that it is all in your head because there are enough True Believers that will either swallow the bullshit down whole without taking a sniff first or will use New Ageish words to con other people out of money. Neither of these are acceptable.
Emphasis mine. The sort of dismissive statements that I'm talking about. "It's all in your head". So? How does it make the happening any less interesting? And not once did I suggest conning people out of money or "swallowing bullshit down whole". If True Believers do that, it's not my place to stop them. I am not my brother's keeper. I can educate but I can't force people to drink.
QuoteQuote"But it's /just/ the placebo effect".
Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.
Which is why I tend to hang out with "New Agers" more than Skeptics. The weird stuff has interesting results.
~Kai
I've never been dismissive about the placebo effect. It's interesting to see how we can mindfuck ourselves. We just have to take a step back every once in awhile and remind ourselves that this isn't real. Don't drink your own jenkem. There's also the fact that certain alternative practices can be harmful (http://whatstheharm.net/). They can give you all of the side effects without any of the positive benefits.
Except it is real. The placebo effect is not fake. It happens. There are real happenings here. What you are saying is that its not
physical which is something entirely different; you're saying that auric energy doesn't exist, however, the effect of manipulating visions of the aura in mind is very real, just like the effect of meditation is real (and measurable to an extent).
I'm not going to pretend I don't agree with you that certain practices are harmful and they should be revealed as so. This rant wasn't about that.
excellent thread, Kai.
Iason, the link that you put forth to 'whatstheharm.net' seems to show the 'actively seeking things to disbelieve' attitude that some have expressed an aversion to. i just clicked on a few of the examples that seemed to stick out to me as not being total crap from what i know.
i saw several examples like:
QuoteCupping is a practice from traditional Chinese medicine where cups are placed on the body and heated to create suction on the skin to enhance the flow of "qi." Read more about cupping
Here is a person who was harmed by someone not thinking critically.
Odd-Inge Haagensen
Age: 44
Oslo, Norway
He had a stiff neck. His doctor tried to treat this with cupping. The alcohol used in the cupping procedure caught fire, and he was burned. He will need treatment for at least a month.
that's a stretch.... these guys put an entire practice into the horsefeathers bin because of this accident? i noticed that they didn't have any categories for ....oh, say, RF neural ablation. but accidents happen there, too. there's an obvious pattern that they're following that shows a bias.
after seeing a few more examples like that i closed the page and felt a little more annoyed by the 'crusading skeptic' type.
i understand that critical thinking is certainly important with all the crap out there, and that trying to instill this in others is noble. but the overly zealous 'skeptics' perhaps should consider backlash over some of the perceived attitudes they can put out.
perhaps they need a 'what's the harm' category for skepticism?
It seems to me that many of the skeptics that Kai doesn't like are really anxious about leaving things in the "unknown" column for too long. They want to file it under "true" or "false" as soon as possible, so they look for any reason to verify or debunk, no matter how tenuous.
Of course, this leads directly to Lo5, and bias confirmation.
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:23:01 PM
It seems to me that many of the skeptics that Kai doesn't like are really anxious about leaving things in the "unknown" column for too long. They want to file it under "true" or "false" as soon as possible, so they look for any reason to verify or debunk, no matter how tenuous.
Of course, this leads directly to Lo5, and bias confirmation.
Incidentally I think this is why skeptics don't often make scientific discovery, because discovery is often irrational, based in metaphor and insight that comes almost randomly. Barbara McClintock didn't come by her understanding of transposable elements through careful rational thought; she assembled massive amounts of data and just let it churn over and over in her subconscious, when suddenly the answer would just occur to her. I believe the helical structure of DNA came to Francis Crick as he was ascending a spiral staircase. This sort of insight won't happen if I can't allow myself to entertain all sorts of weird notions.
I thought Crick had a dream he was ascending a spiral staircase.
While he was on acid.
Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "It's just random chance."
Cram: "FUCK YOU MY CAT DIED OF RANDOM CHANCE!! MY LAPTOP FELL DOWN THE STAIRS BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE!!!! YOU KNOW THAT TIME I ALMOST GOT KICKED OUT OF MY APPARTMENT??!! FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE!! AND FUCK YOU FUCKING FUCK I DIDNT WIN THE LOTTERY BECAUSE OF FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING CHANCE IF YOU SAY ITS FUCKING JUST FUCKING RANDOM FUCKING CHANCE YOU FUCK THESE FUCKING CARS WITH THEIR FUCKING LICENSE PLATES BEING THE FUCKING SAME, YOU SAY THATS FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE?? RANDOM CHANCE RUINED MY FUCKING LIFE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCK"
Skeptic: "..."
Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "Awesome."
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 02:56:56 PM
I thought Crick had a dream he was ascending a spiral staircase.
While he was on acid.
:lulz:
I can't quite tell if you're pulling my leg. :lol:
I'm pretty sure either a dream or an altered state of mind was implied, if not outright admitted.
I know the structure of several molecules and compounds has been dreamed, though.
Also, as an aside, my problem with skeptics is they don't go far enough. Cool, you've educated people on why so and so isn't real. Why haven't you applied your skeptical skills to something outside the realms of parapsychological and religious crankery? I swear to god, I'd love it if skeptics took a swipe at....say, game theory. Or the persistent myth of appeasement in Munich, 1938. Restricting their skepticism to a few choice topics is sad. They should take it to its logical conclusion, and undermine faith in everything.
As an aside, its worth noting that many "Decent Liberals" in the UK (essentially the British answer to American "centrists" like Liberman) have a great interest in more facile areas of skepticism. I suspect this is not because they care about the truth and questioning everything, but more because they are interested in setting and patrolling the borders of acceptable debate, both in politics and science. Disagree with them on politics, and you're a "dhimmi", disagree with them on science and you're a "dangerous crank". They're addicted to setting down boundaries and attacking those who refuse to fit into their set paramaters.
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html (http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html)
This is a good essay on the topic.
I think it just comes down to the difference between BEING a skeptic or simply just USING critical thinking.
Crick:
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/crick_lsd.htm
Quote from: Regret on August 24, 2009, 04:37:13 PM
Crick:
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/crick_lsd.htm
"Print a word of it and I'll sue"
:lulz:
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 24, 2009, 04:17:46 PM
http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html (http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html)
This is a good essay on the topic.
This was referenced in the link yhwmzy posted.
Quote from: Anton on August 24, 2009, 08:09:54 AM
And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview.
When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Anton on August 24, 2009, 08:09:54 AM
And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview.
When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there
Mind you, I put "new agers" in quotes because I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Better term would probably be psychonauts, and I don't mean with the drug connotation either. People exploring consciousness in ways that knutzian skeptics would balk at. The truth is that there seem to be more psychonauts among the new age crowd than any other subculture.
Quote from: Kai on August 24, 2009, 02:49:05 PM
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 02:23:01 PM
It seems to me that many of the skeptics that Kai doesn't like are really anxious about leaving things in the "unknown" column for too long. They want to file it under "true" or "false" as soon as possible, so they look for any reason to verify or debunk, no matter how tenuous.
Of course, this leads directly to Lo5, and bias confirmation.
Incidentally I think this is why skeptics don't often make scientific discovery, because discovery is often irrational, based in metaphor and insight that comes almost randomly. Barbara McClintock didn't come by her understanding of transposable elements through careful rational thought; she assembled massive amounts of data and just let it churn over and over in her subconscious, when suddenly the answer would just occur to her. I believe the helical structure of DNA came to Francis Crick as he was ascending a spiral staircase. This sort of insight won't happen if I can't allow myself to entertain all sorts of weird notions.
I can think of tons of them from Lemark, to Hooker, to Sagan (who actually had discovery's that people forget about), to Lowell... the list is actually endless
LOL, Sagan.
Quote from: Kai on August 24, 2009, 06:07:47 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Anton on August 24, 2009, 08:09:54 AM
And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview.
When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there
Mind you, I put "new agers" in quotes because I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Better term would probably be psychonauts, and I don't mean with the drug connotation either. People exploring consciousness in ways that knutzian skeptics would balk at. The truth is that there seem to be more psychonauts among the new age crowd than any other subculture.
Take it from someone who dated a new ager/neopagan for 8 years and helped her build a few communities, and even a tarot card reading business once, new age is all about feeling good. That's it. Nothing more.
Quote from: LMNO on August 24, 2009, 06:18:48 PM
LOL, Sagan.
Ok how about an oldy goldy Gaspard Monge was a mathematician and the inventor of Descriptive geometry back in the time of Napoleon
Or one of my favorites, who I forgot about :-( Simon Newcomb... and that story about him be skeptical of the possibility of flight is crap, what he actually said that fight would have to be continuous, before of course the use of helicopters
This thread makes me think of what Dave Elman called "the critical factor." According to Elman, bypassing this faculty is when hypnosis occurs. Critical factor = fundamentally dismissing ideas.
Skeptics don't want to be duped, make decisions they regret, or fall prey to wishful thinking. I think they feel like habitually suspending critical thought will lead to a diluting of their critical abilities which they believe to be their primary skill in avoiding exploitation, making sound decisions and attaining slack.
I guess they don't see how using illusions are compatible with their high value on objective truth. They see it as lying to oneself, rather than using an innate feature of your biology. While by definition, the placebo is a lie, hypnosis is not necessarily a lie. You can bypass your critical thinking without lying to yourself.
I disagree.
I think that being skeptical is all about exploring. Not accepting an answer just because it seems to be constant with some world view. Cause when you make a discovery it almost always contradicts you world view.
People who are not skeptical accept the hypothesis as fact, usually cause it feels good to, rather then explore.
Being skeptical is being curious.
Not being skeptical is the lack of curiosity.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 06:40:09 PM
I disagree.
I think that being skeptical is all about exploring. Not accepting an answer just because it seems to be constant with some world view. Cause when you make a discovery it almost always contradicts you world view.
People who are not skeptical accept the hypothesis as fact, usually cause it feels good to, rather then explore.
Being skeptical is being curious.
Not being skeptical is the lack of curiosity.
Who and what are you disagreeing with?
sorry Net I misread your post
:sad:
my bad
Im blaming it on my insomnia and lack of morning coffee
:argh!:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 06:47:29 PM
sorry Net I misread your post
:sad:
my bad
Im blaming it on my insomnia and lack of morning coffee
:argh!:
It's all good.
That's a bad combination that I'm all too familiar with.
Quote from: Cramulus on August 23, 2009, 03:21:27 PM
The skeptic seemed quite tuned into defeating meaning. Telling me that this event was meaningless, "just random chance", as if the idea that this synch emerged from happenstance makes it any less meaningful (to me).
I think sometimes it's a lazy power game - with very low risk - the skeptic cannot easily be proved wrong if at all.
Plus there is a juicy implication to play with - "aww cute little child amused by trinkets". Attractive self-satisfaction - "yes I already know and it's not interesting enough for me to reconsider". Though I don't know if this profile matches your skeptic at all.
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 11:59:22 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
It is?
Quote from: The Nerve-Ending Fairy on August 24, 2009, 02:31:34 AM
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.
Sounds to me like trading one flat, boring, angry perspective for another. I'd rather run around being curious and having fun instead of grumping my way through life.
I meant it in jest. Thanks for your replies. Worldviews that suck, suck.
Quote from: Kai on August 24, 2009, 12:48:20 PM
I have religious experiences all the time, but then again I seek them out actively. Most of the time not in some special edifice either. :)
I swear that I read this as orifice the first time. :lulz:
QuoteIt's interesting and useful bullshit. What else do you want me to say? I'm glad that you realize that it is all in your head because there are enough True Believers that will either swallow the bullshit down whole without taking a sniff first or will use New Ageish words to con other people out of money. Neither of these are acceptable.
QuoteEmphasis mine. The sort of dismissive statements that I'm talking about. "It's all in your head". So? How does it make the happening any less interesting? And not once did I suggest conning people out of money or "swallowing bullshit down whole". If True Believers do that, it's not my place to stop them. I am not my brother's keeper. I can educate but I can't force people to drink.
Notice that I specified that it is "interesting and useful bullshit". Mindfucks can be fun and help you learn more about yourself. It can even occasionally help you come up with things unconsciously. Just don't mistake it for reality. Use Crick as an example. Sure he (allegedly) got his ideas about the double helix from a drug induced dream. But people didn't believe him because of the dream, they believed him because he followed that up with empirical research. Alternative methods can lead to inspiration but you have to back it up with science at some point.
QuoteExcept it is real. The placebo effect is not fake. It happens. There are real happenings here. What you are saying is that its not physical which is something entirely different; you're saying that auric energy doesn't exist, however, the effect of manipulating visions of the aura in mind is very real, just like the effect of meditation is real (and measurable to an extent).
I'm not going to pretend I don't agree with you that certain practices are harmful and they should be revealed as so. This rant wasn't about that.
I never said that the placebo effect is fake. There are things physically happening in the brain that we seriously need to take a look at. But that doesn't excuse people from using methods that can be harmful or fraudulant just because it can sometimes induce the placebo effect.
Quote from: fictionpuss on August 24, 2009, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on August 23, 2009, 03:21:27 PM
The skeptic seemed quite tuned into defeating meaning. Telling me that this event was meaningless, "just random chance", as if the idea that this synch emerged from happenstance makes it any less meaningful (to me).
I think sometimes it's a lazy power game - with very low risk - the skeptic cannot easily be proved wrong if at all.
Plus there is a juicy implication to play with - "aww cute little child amused by trinkets". Attractive self-satisfaction - "yes I already know and it's not interesting enough for me to reconsider". Though I don't know if this profile matches your skeptic at all.
FUCK YOU! I'M RIGHT; YOU'RE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT!!!! :evilmad:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 25, 2009, 02:15:56 AM
Notice that I specified that it is "interesting and useful bullshit". Mindfucks can be fun and help you learn more about yourself. It can even occasionally help you come up with things unconsciously. Just don't mistake it for reality. Use Crick as an example. Sure he (allegedly) got his ideas about the double helix from a drug induced dream. But people didn't believe him because of the dream, they believed him because he followed that up with empirical research. Alternative methods can lead to inspiration but you have to back it up with science at some point.
I never said that the placebo effect is fake. There are things physically happening in the brain that we seriously need to take a look at. But that doesn't excuse people from using methods that can be harmful or fraudulant just because it can sometimes induce the placebo effect.
First part: In a sense, it's always been about what you bring back to mundane reality. Prometheus wasn't fucking awesome and able to throw fireballs, he stole fire from the gods to keep men warm. For example. It's not that Crick backed up his intuition with science, it's that his intuition
inspired his science. He made imaginings concrete.
Second part: We might get somewhere if we start with the claim, "Fraud and harm can happen everywhere, including the occult. Defraud or cause needless harm, and you're a dick." Also, I'd like to set aside the phrase, "placebo effect", since I'm not confident the idea is general enough to cover that portion of the map. IDK.
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 03:58:55 PM
Also, as an aside, my problem with skeptics is they don't go far enough. Cool, you've educated people on why so and so isn't real. Why haven't you applied your skeptical skills to something outside the realms of parapsychological and religious crankery? I swear to god, I'd love it if skeptics took a swipe at....say, game theory. Or the persistent myth of appeasement in Munich, 1938. Restricting their skepticism to a few choice topics is sad. They should take it to its logical conclusion, and undermine faith in everything.
Forgot to mention that this is a brilliant idea. If you did a Skeptical History blog I would help pimp the fuck out of it. The only problem I could see with something like that would be the constant accusations of being revisionist and "having an agenda". I'd still love to see someone try to pull it off.
It would be fun.
And of course it would have an agenda. Truth is an agenda, no? I guess its upmost in my mind, because I've been reading Ian Kershaw's Nemesis (brilliant biography of Hitler, btw) and it documents his reaction to Munich as bitterly enraged and humiliated. He wanted to use Munich to start a war, before Britain and France could re-arm and due to the intervention of Mussolini it failed. He knew if he attacked them without pretext, then the world would likely unite against his aggressive moves, but if he was to burn them to the ground and then occupy them as a defensive manouvere, then by the time the Americans and Soviets realised what had happened, it would be too late. He could then unleash the powers of a mostly united and fascist Europe against the Soviet Union, and America would likely stand by and let it happen. As things turned out, Chamberlain knew he needed another year to get enough fighters and radar cover to defend Britain adequately, and Stalin realised that he was being played by interests in the West and so cut a deal with Hitler in order to unleash him westwards instead of eastwards, buying Stalin enough time to rebuild the Red Army and create a buffer zone of satellite states between the USSR and Germany.
The reason this is important is because the Neocons and their allies like to paint Munich as terrible capitulation and proof of the folly of negotiation with tyrants, ever. That Munich was a victory for Hitler and led to a further taste for expansionism that culminated in the invasion of Poland, not to mention the subtext of the Holocaust. That we successfully negotiated with the Soviets for fifty years after the start of WWII somehow doesn't prove the opposite, to the Neocons.
Because they are hacks. Hacks with degrees in political philosophy. And big publishers. And think tanks. And government appointed positions. But still hacks.
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.
Couldn't agree more. IMO the placebo effect is the only true miracle that's ever been satisfactorily proven to me.
Quote from: Triple Zero on August 24, 2009, 03:03:42 PM
Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "It's just random chance."
Cram: "FUCK YOU MY CAT DIED OF RANDOM CHANCE!! MY LAPTOP FELL DOWN THE STAIRS BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE!!!! YOU KNOW THAT TIME I ALMOST GOT KICKED OUT OF MY APPARTMENT??!! FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE!! AND FUCK YOU FUCKING FUCK I DIDNT WIN THE LOTTERY BECAUSE OF FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING CHANCE IF YOU SAY ITS FUCKING JUST FUCKING RANDOM FUCKING CHANCE YOU FUCK THESE FUCKING CARS WITH THEIR FUCKING LICENSE PLATES BEING THE FUCKING SAME, YOU SAY THATS FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE?? RANDOM CHANCE RUINED MY FUCKING LIFE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCK"
Skeptic: "..."
Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "Awesome."
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on August 26, 2009, 12:45:00 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 23, 2009, 02:28:00 PM
Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.
Couldn't agree more. IMO the placebo effect is the only true miracle that's ever been satisfactorily proven to me.
if the bullshit WORKS, even if it is a placebo then suspension of disbelief (temporarily) cannot be a bad thing.
[edit cos I borked format up]
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 06:19:56 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 24, 2009, 06:07:47 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 24, 2009, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: Anton on August 24, 2009, 08:09:54 AM
And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview.
When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there
Mind you, I put "new agers" in quotes because I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Better term would probably be psychonauts, and I don't mean with the drug connotation either. People exploring consciousness in ways that knutzian skeptics would balk at. The truth is that there seem to be more psychonauts among the new age crowd than any other subculture.
Take it from someone who dated a new ager/neopagan for 8 years and helped her build a few communities, and even a tarot card reading business once, new age is all about feeling good. That's it. Nothing more.
Exactly. To consider yourself a new ager is to hold feeling "warm 'n fuzzy" higher than all else. No price is too high to feel good and right and holy and empowered no matter what. You cannot be a good psychonaut if that is your sole motivation. Or, you can, just not a very good one.
Not everything is light and happy and fluffy and fat-free organic free-range extra vitamin C probiotic.
On the other hand, someone ITT pointed out that balls-out skepticism is inorganic. I would agree with this.
Which is why I say that I want to be as free of delusion as I can. All we have is inductive reasoning--we're hard-wired for it, and it powers our cognition. The same thing that makes science possible, also makes magical thinking possible.
Quote from: Pixie O'Fubar on August 26, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
if the bullshit WORKS, even if it is a placebo then suspension of disbelief (temporarily) cannot be a bad thing.
As i understand it, suspension of disbelief (in a sense) is not even necessary. in some NPR piece i heard a while ago about the placebo effect, a doctor was saying that he did a study and found that patients who were explicitly told they were receiving a placebo (but that it would still work) benefited the same amount (statistically) that they would have if told it was an active compound....
now i have to look it up....
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: Pixie O'Fubar on August 26, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
if the bullshit WORKS, even if it is a placebo then suspension of disbelief (temporarily) cannot be a bad thing.
As i understand it, suspension of disbelief (in a sense) is not even necessary. in some NPR piece i heard a while ago about the placebo effect, a doctor was saying that he did a study and found that patients who were explicitly told they were receiving a placebo (but that it would still work) benefited the same amount (statistically) that they would have if told it was an active compound....
now i have to look it up....
that would be cool Ippy.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: Pixie O'Fubar on August 26, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
if the bullshit WORKS, even if it is a placebo then suspension of disbelief (temporarily) cannot be a bad thing.
As i understand it, suspension of disbelief (in a sense) is not even necessary. in some NPR piece i heard a while ago about the placebo effect, a doctor was saying that he did a study and found that patients who were explicitly told they were receiving a placebo (but that it would still work) benefited the same amount (statistically) that they would have if told it was an active compound....
now i have to look it up....
I heard the same report. The placebo effect, the report theorized may have more to do with DOING SOMETHING (even taking a sugar pill twice a day) than thinking that you're taking medication... the act of doing, according to the report may be what's improving the condition. I found this kinda interesting... it reminded me of my early forays into rituals... at first it seemed stupid, but I kept doing it every day and after about two weeks it felt like things were happening. Pete Carroll calls it the "Fake it Till You Make It" rule in magic. Of course, the report could be bullocks.
Quote from: Pixie O'Fubar on August 26, 2009, 03:35:43 PM
that would be cool Ippy.
Found this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000109mag-talbot7.html
among the examples:
QuoteAnd there is one small study, the only one of its kind, that suggests that a placebo prescribed openly could win over some patients. At an outpatient psychiatric clinic in 1965, two researchers from John Hopkins University gave 15 adult "neurotics" an inert pill identified as such. With straight faces, the doctors told them that "many people with your kind of condition have also been helped by what are sometimes called sugar pills, and we feel that a so-called sugar pill may help you, too. Do you know what a sugar pill is? A sugar pill is a pill with no medicine in it at all. I think this pill will help you as it has helped so many others. Are you willing to try this pill?" Fourteen of the patients were convinced by this vaguely smarmy-sounding pitch (the 15th dropped out after her husband made fun of the idea), and after a week all reported ameliorated symptoms. Some thought the pill definitely was a placebo and some thought it must actually be an active drug, but either way, they had faith that the doctor was trying to help them, and they improved. At the least, then, Brown's idea deserves to be tested out with a bigger, more reliable study.
it mentions others where, although not specifically called a 'placebo', it is presented as a 'pill with no drugs in it, and we don't know why it works, but it does' and has substantial positive effects....
just a note, while looking for reference to this, i read a few articles on placebos, and was suprised to find that, even the articles that were talking up the effects of placebos, and how we need to use them more, used language that was dismissive or derisive. i guess out of reflex? or perhaps to sound more reputable to the reader? (i.e. "see, i'm a skeptic, too, but....")
This morning, I JUST read Chapter 15 in Quantum Psychology entitled: Psychosomatic Synergy where Wilson discusses spontaneous remission, self-fulfilling prophecies, orgone accumulators and drops 'metaprogramming' for the first time in this book.
While I haven't verified his sources most of it placebo effect does seem plausible.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on August 26, 2009, 09:22:51 AM
Quote from: Cain on August 24, 2009, 03:58:55 PM
Also, as an aside, my problem with skeptics is they don't go far enough. Cool, you've educated people on why so and so isn't real. Why haven't you applied your skeptical skills to something outside the realms of parapsychological and religious crankery? I swear to god, I'd love it if skeptics took a swipe at....say, game theory. Or the persistent myth of appeasement in Munich, 1938. Restricting their skepticism to a few choice topics is sad. They should take it to its logical conclusion, and undermine faith in everything.
Forgot to mention that this is a brilliant idea. If you did a Skeptical History blog I would help pimp the fuck out of it. The only problem I could see with something like that would be the constant accusations of being revisionist and "having an agenda". I'd still love to see someone try to pull it off.
I swear that mere minutes after I wrote this that I got an e-mail from eSkeptic about an interview with David Cullen about his Columbine (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446546933?ie=UTF8&tag=skepticcom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0446546933) book. It's a miracle!!! :lol:
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
It would be fun.
And of course it would have an agenda. Truth is an agenda, no? I guess its upmost in my mind, because I've been reading Ian Kershaw's Nemesis (brilliant biography of Hitler, btw) and it documents his reaction to Munich as bitterly enraged and humiliated. He wanted to use Munich to start a war, before Britain and France could re-arm and due to the intervention of Mussolini it failed. He knew if he attacked them without pretext, then the world would likely unite against his aggressive moves, but if he was to burn them to the ground and then occupy them as a defensive manouvere, then by the time the Americans and Soviets realised what had happened, it would be too late. He could then unleash the powers of a mostly united and fascist Europe against the Soviet Union, and America would likely stand by and let it happen. As things turned out, Chamberlain knew he needed another year to get enough fighters and radar cover to defend Britain adequately, and Stalin realised that he was being played by interests in the West and so cut a deal with Hitler in order to unleash him westwards instead of eastwards, buying Stalin enough time to rebuild the Red Army and create a buffer zone of satellite states between the USSR and Germany.
You could spend a lifetime debunking all of the myths surrounding Hitler and everything WWII related. Everyone loves to spread disinfo about it for their own purposes. *cough*doughy pantload*cough*
QuoteThe reason this is important is because the Neocons and their allies like to paint Munich as terrible capitulation and proof of the folly of negotiation with tyrants, ever. That Munich was a victory for Hitler and led to a further taste for expansionism that culminated in the invasion of Poland, not to mention the subtext of the Holocaust. That we successfully negotiated with the Soviets for fifty years after the start of WWII somehow doesn't prove the opposite, to the Neocons.
Because they are hacks. Hacks with degrees in political philosophy. And big publishers. And think tanks. And government appointed positions. But still hacks.
Don't you know that diplomacy is always always doubleplusungood?
Quote from: Burns on August 26, 2009, 04:53:55 PM
This morning, I JUST read Chapter 15 in Quantum Psychology entitled: Psychosomatic Synergy where Wilson discusses spontaneous remission, self-fulfilling prophecies, orgone accumulators and drops 'metaprogramming' for the first time in this book.
While I haven't verified his sources most of it placebo effect does seem plausible.
I need to read that book, IN SPITE OF having the word QUANTUM(!) in the title.
im taking a bunch of quantum physic classes... my only preparation for them is i printed out a few pictures of LMNO which I plan to frame and bring to every class.
Quote from: Kai on August 26, 2009, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Burns on August 26, 2009, 04:53:55 PM
This morning, I JUST read Chapter 15 in Quantum Psychology entitled: Psychosomatic Synergy where Wilson discusses spontaneous remission, self-fulfilling prophecies, orgone accumulators and drops 'metaprogramming' for the first time in this book.
While I haven't verified his sources most of it placebo effect does seem plausible.
I need to read that book, IN SPITE OF having the word QUANTUM(!) in the title.
Heh, its used more as a metaphor rather than ZOMG YOU MAKE TEH REALITY BY OBZERVN!
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 26, 2009, 07:02:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 26, 2009, 06:24:10 PM
Quote from: Burns on August 26, 2009, 04:53:55 PM
This morning, I JUST read Chapter 15 in Quantum Psychology entitled: Psychosomatic Synergy where Wilson discusses spontaneous remission, self-fulfilling prophecies, orgone accumulators and drops 'metaprogramming' for the first time in this book.
While I haven't verified his sources most of it placebo effect does seem plausible.
I need to read that book, IN SPITE OF having the word QUANTUM(!) in the title.
Heh, its used more as a metaphor rather than ZOMG YOU MAKE TEH REALITY BY OBZERVN!
:lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 03:09:05 PM
Quote from: Pixie O'Fubar on August 26, 2009, 02:36:00 PM
if the bullshit WORKS, even if it is a placebo then suspension of disbelief (temporarily) cannot be a bad thing.
As i understand it, suspension of disbelief (in a sense) is not even necessary. in some NPR piece i heard a while ago about the placebo effect, a doctor was saying that he did a study and found that patients who were explicitly told they were receiving a placebo (but that it would still work) benefited the same amount (statistically) that they would have if told it was an active compound....
now i have to look it up....
What if they didn't really know what the placebo effect means? Then it would still be the regular belief-based placebo effect. Eh? Eh?
Quote from: Anton on August 26, 2009, 08:20:08 PM
What if they didn't really know what the placebo effect means? Then it would still be the regular belief-based placebo effect. Eh? Eh?
some of what i read in looking that up makes me wonder where the patients really are on the spectrum of belief. for instance, one of the prescription brand name placebos is called Obecalp..... seriously, if you know what a placebo is, i would think, even if you didn't in full awareness catch what the name was, there would be some little homonculus in your head screaming 'its a fake, buddy!'.....
also, there were examples in that article where the patient was told it's a sugar pill, asked if they knew what that means, explained to that they don't understand why it works, and then it still does....
they also point out that the size of the treatment makes a difference. a big sugar pill works better than a small sugar pill. a shot works better than a big sugar pill. an iv works even better. and fake surgery better yet....
i wonder if there has been a study regarding whether there is better results from surgery when there is religious pomp and ritual present at the time?
Faith healing/psychic surgery, anyone?
Quote from: LMNO on August 26, 2009, 08:35:09 PM
psychic surgery, anyone?
Goddammit, my mother believes in that shit. And she should know better, she's a trained fucking scientist. Then, when she's shown how the fraud is done, she says "Well, yes, but not ALL of them are frauds".
You ever wonder who gets taken in by these assholes? I don't.
the distinction between fraud and genuine treatment with placebo isn't totally unambiguous, though. obviously the quacks in 3rd world countries that make a killing by treating peoples cancers by palming chicken livers are scumbuckets, but the article i posted with its example of the placebo surgery for knee arthritis is not quite the same, right?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:33:27 PM
Quote from: Anton on August 26, 2009, 08:20:08 PM
What if they didn't really know what the placebo effect means? Then it would still be the regular belief-based placebo effect. Eh? Eh?
some of what i read in looking that up makes me wonder where the patients really are on the spectrum of belief. for instance, one of the prescription brand name placebos is called Obecalp..... seriously, if you know what a placebo is, i would think, even if you didn't in full awareness catch what the name was, there would be some little homonculus in your head screaming 'its a fake, buddy!'.....
also, there were examples in that article where the patient was told it's a sugar pill, asked if they knew what that means, explained to that they don't understand why it works, and then it still does....
they also point out that the size of the treatment makes a difference. a big sugar pill works better than a small sugar pill. a shot works better than a big sugar pill. an iv works even better. and fake surgery better yet....
i wonder if there has been a study regarding whether there is better results from surgery when there is religious pomp and ritual present at the time?
I've heard that patients who believe people praying for them will get god's help actually end up WORSE from surgery, because they're less careful.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:33:27 PM
i wonder if there has been a study regarding whether there is better results from surgery when there is religious pomp and ritual present at the time?
Actually, there was a study about the effectiveness of prayer...is that close enough?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
Kai about beat me to it up there, but the synopsis is the first couple of sentences in the article:
QuotePrayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
hmm....
if this is, in fact, the case, why the discrepancy?
what's the difference?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
hmm....
if this is, in fact, the case, why the discrepancy?
what's the difference?
NEVER FUCKING PRAY.
You don't know
what is listening.
:lulz:
Shit...I gotta quote you on that one, Rog.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
hmm....
if this is, in fact, the case, why the discrepancy?
what's the difference?
Do you mean the discrepancy in placebo effect vs. the "power" of prayer?
Well, the placebo medication means that the individual is engaged in a daily (or multiple times daily) ritual. They are performing Action... repetitively. The other poor schmucks with the prayer are having someone else do the work and just waiting for the results...
maybe...
They put it down to "performance anxiety" in the article..."If they are praying for me, why aren't I getting better?"
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2009, 09:06:25 PM
They put it down to "performance anxiety" in the article...
Don't worry Jesus, it happens to everyone sometimes... It's not your fault.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 26, 2009, 09:07:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2009, 09:06:25 PM
They put it down to "performance anxiety" in the article...
Don't worry Jesus, it happens to everyone sometimes... It's not your fault.
More like: Jesus Hates Me--I'm Not Well in 24 Hours or Less
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 26, 2009, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
hmm....
if this is, in fact, the case, why the discrepancy?
what's the difference?
NEVER FUCKING PRAY.
You don't know what is listening.
i actually had a dream about just this a few nights ago:
begin dream description/
i was helping some way-too-drunk guy walk down the street of my neighborhood to get him to my house to safety. it was particularly difficult because he was stumbling drunk, it was dark night, and its on a particularly steep hill in my neighborhood. i looked up to the sky and prayed for help. as i am a pantheist, my prayers are just, sort-of, generalized things to the universe as a whole. (which is odd, now that i think about it, since i direct them 'up' when thats silly in the context....) next thing i know, theres a fuckin UFO that lands behind me. (oddly it was made out of brick and was about the size of a McMansion type house) The luminous grey alien that steps out indicates that he's here to answer my call for help like he's the fucking AAA. i excitedly wave him off with what i figure must be a universal 'my bad' look on my face. he seemed annoyed as he left.... i dragged the drunk guys ass to the house by myself after that....
/dream description
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 09:17:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 26, 2009, 08:59:39 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 08:55:31 PM
hmm....
if this is, in fact, the case, why the discrepancy?
what's the difference?
NEVER FUCKING PRAY.
You don't know what is listening.
i actually had a dream about just this a few nights ago:
begin dream description/
i was helping some way-too-drunk guy walk down the street of my neighborhood to get him to my house to safety. it was particularly difficult because he was stumbling drunk, it was dark night, and its on a particularly steep hill in my neighborhood. i looked up to the sky and prayed for help. as i am a pantheist, my prayers are just, sort-of, generalized things to the universe as a whole. (which is odd, now that i think about it, since i direct them 'up' when thats silly in the context....) next thing i know, theres a fuckin UFO that lands behind me. (oddly it was made out of brick and was about the size of a McMansion type house) The luminous grey alien that steps out indicates that he's here to answer my call for help like he's the fucking AAA. i excitedly wave him off with what i figure must be a universal 'my bad' look on my face. he seemed annoyed as he left.... i dragged the drunk guys ass to the house by myself after that....
/dream description
Damn, thats better than my dream last night... I don't mind flying around in the TARDIS, but why did it look like the Shower Tent from Pennsic?! :argh!:
HYPOTHESES:
"POWER OF PRAYER" = LEANING INTO A CRUTCH.
RITUAL = INVESTMENT OF EFFORT TOWARDS DEFINED GOAL.
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 09:17:36 PM
i actually had a dream about just this a few nights ago:
begin dream description/
i was helping some way-too-drunk guy walk down the street of my neighborhood to get him to my house to safety. it was particularly difficult because he was stumbling drunk, it was dark night, and its on a particularly steep hill in my neighborhood. i looked up to the sky and prayed for help. as i am a pantheist, my prayers are just, sort-of, generalized things to the universe as a whole. (which is odd, now that i think about it, since i direct them 'up' when thats silly in the context....) next thing i know, theres a fuckin UFO that lands behind me. (oddly it was made out of brick and was about the size of a McMansion type house) The luminous grey alien that steps out indicates that he's here to answer my call for help like he's the fucking AAA. i excitedly wave him off with what i figure must be a universal 'my bad' look on my face. he seemed annoyed as he left.... i dragged the drunk guys ass to the house by myself after that....
/dream description
boldConditioned action. Also, up is very relative, very personal. Without gravity, there is no 'up'. Seem to remember that weightlessness/free-fall on its own has induced [quasi-]religious experiences.
italicIf Universe can hear your prayers, you might as well make them clear and detailed. Also it's good practice to know what you want/intend, and state it. Asking for help to get the guy home, though, sounds about right in this scenario.
Also, :lulz: for not accepting offers of help. Don't be so ornery IRL
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 26, 2009, 09:43:10 PM
HYPOTHESES:
"POWER OF PRAYER" = LEANING INTO A CRUTCH.
RITUAL = INVESTMENT OF EFFORT TOWARDS DEFINED GOAL.
hmmm.
i'm still not seeing it.
'i'm going to perform this surgery/give you this pill/etc. it will work'
result: it works
'i'm going to perform this ritual/prayer/etc. it will work'
result: no effect/deleterious effect
ahh... there was a thing i read saying there is a negative placebo effect, or 'nocebo' effect, where a patient will be statistically worse off if they believe the treatment will not work. perhaps the prayer study subject didn't
actually believe..... or the scientific nature of the study raised doubt?
or perhaps the study was simply done by someone antagonistic to religiosity and the results are suspect?
Quote from: Iptuous on August 26, 2009, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on August 26, 2009, 09:43:10 PM
HYPOTHESES:
"POWER OF PRAYER" = LEANING INTO A CRUTCH.
RITUAL = INVESTMENT OF EFFORT TOWARDS DEFINED GOAL.
hmmm.
i'm still not seeing it.
'i'm going to perform this surgery/give you this pill/etc. it will work'
result: it works
'i'm going to perform this ritual/prayer/etc. it will work'
result: no effect/deleterious effect
ahh... there was a thing i read saying there is a negative placebo effect, or 'nocebo' effect, where a patient will be statistically worse off if they believe the treatment will not work. perhaps the prayer study subject didn't actually believe..... or the scientific nature of the study raised doubt?
or perhaps the study was simply done by someone antagonistic to religiosity and the results are suspect?
Question of participation. I meant mostly to summarize prior posts, there. Even if one's participation in a ritual (pill/surgery) is mostly passive, one will see oneself as investing in the work, presumably.
Prayer in whatever experimental setup is like saying, "Look out for the invisible check I mailed you. It's in an invisible envelope."