Forums > Social Discussion > Homeopathic Medicine

Posted: 19th May 2005
i agree that if he won't explain it then i shouldn't trust the practicioner but i asked him the question at the end of the appointment and i was bored because it had gone on so long i didn't really push it. I find it difficult to concentrate because i am always tired (can't sleep well because of the pain) and the appointment had been over an hour already, i just wanted to get out of there!


This is why i have just sent him a long email full of questions and i am awaiting his reply. If he fails to answer my questions i will definately not continue to go to him. I will post his reply...if he does that is!!

One comment he did make that made me think 'what the ' was that the reason that i am stubborn, always want to get my own way etc is because my grandfather had TB once.....WHAT!!?!?!??!?!?!??!?! I have asked him to explain this in my email.

oh and another thing. The only reason that i am trying this is because i have tried (almost!) everything and i just want to get better. If anyone can think of any other alternative approaches i'd love to hear about them!!

Posted: 19th May 2005
i know a girl who went to an iridologist once. They say that you can tell everything about a persons health by the patterns in the iris of your eyes. She was sceptical before she went but found it remarkably correct.

and spiralx, the only thing that is keeping your body from compressing to a single point is the vibration of your atoms, better start believing

Yeah i agree that if the guy isn't open with you and you don't trust him go with someone else, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the homeopathy will work.

Also homeopathy seems to me to be more closely linked to alchemy than chemisty, before you dismiss alchemy because "you can't turn lead into gold" i'd like to point out that that is a metaphor. The hemeticists used methods like this so that ignorant people would never delve deep enough to find any true knowledge in their teachings. I think this is why it's hard to test homeopathy by 'regular' means.

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 19th May 2005
'Just a quicky for quiet tho: Your belief system allows for you to hold 2 contradicting beliefs, leading you to the conflict. I only use the word Belief once all conflicting thoughts have been resolved into 1 singular Belief. So your arguments fall on deaf ears because you start with conditions that cannot occur in my beliefs system and then prove that they cannot occur.

As spiralx pointed out, this is sophistry: but it fails even on its own terms. Here is why:

You use the word belief for when 'all conflicting thoughts have been resolved.' However, there is at least some conflict in most systems of belief: there must be, or else we would never try to revise our beliefs. Note that I'm using a small 'b' here. The consequence of your account is that i) we can only have one Belief, and ii) until we've resolved all the conflicts, we don't Believe anything.

I dare you to either deny that this follows, or to deny that this is a problem. Go on. Do it.

'and spiralx, the only thing that is keeping your body from compressing to a single point is the vibration of your atoms, better start believing'

No mate, this is wrong. Please, go and read some science: you're making ridiculous claims that just don't match up to reality. What is keeping your body from compressing to a single point is a matter of electromagnetics, not vibrations: specifically, it's a matter of electrons repelling electrons. Were it not for that, there are nuclear forces which prevent nuclei from coming too close to each other. Don't believe me? Why do you think that nuclear fusion requires such great energies?

This total disregard for science is getting out of hand. If you're going to talk about science, then please - at least TRY to get it right. If you're not getting it right, then go read some books. And will you kindly stop implying that just because some nutcase says something in an article, without reference or argument, it must be right.

ture na sig

Posted: 19th May 2005
OH - MY - GOD

I've just read that article thoroughly. I can't believe the sh*te which it contains. Here's a sample:

'ultra low doses . . . falls in the realm of quantum physics . . . The most current theories revolve around the understanding that everything has a resonance or a vibration. A living body has a vibration that is the sum of all the substances in that body. When the vibration is pushed out of its natural resonance, symptoms occur. By using the substance that causes the same set of symptoms we have effectively chosen the vibration of the patient's system that is out of attunement. It is an understood principle in resonance physics that similar vibrations cancel each other out.'

Wrong, incoherent, and wrong. I can't believe that anyone is willing to cite this stuff, let alone pretend that it backs their argument up. The last sentence is, as spiralx pointed out, obvious tripe.

Plus only THREE REFERENCES. Madness. I've included more references in one-week undergraduate essays. Please, please, please, stop with the pseudo-science.

And spherculist: I want a response to my argument above - that your notion of 'Belief' entails that we don't have any Beliefs until we've removed all conflict, and that this consequence is absurd.

ture na sig

Posted: 19th May 2005

Written by: spherculist

---

and spiralx, the only thing that is keeping your body from compressing to a single point is the vibration of your atoms, better start believing

---

I've got a degree in theoretical physics, and that's just wrong. The reason all matter doesn't compress down to a point is due to electrostatic repulsion between the electron shells of atoms. Vibration has nothing to do with it.

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Posted: 19th May 2005
Look Quiet: You and I obviously view life from completely different perspectives, I accept this, you seemingly do not. Like i say, I have no contradictory Beliefs and this is how I believe I and anyone else can manifest an individual Reality. I Believe you can have a totally separate reality. So from your perspective everything you are saying is correct, from my perspective everything I am saying is correct. From your perspective I am mad, from my perspective you have a different point of view to me. I seem illogical to you and you to me.

As for Mr X, My understanding is:

~ That everything in the universe vibrates
~ That the hotter something is, the more the atoms are vibrating
~ The colder something is the less the atoms are vibrating
~ That Absolute zero is what... -273.15 degrees C (i think)
~ That no one has ever cooled anything to absolute zero
~ That if spiralx' atoms were not vibrating he would be at Absolute zero
~ That volume is proportional to temperature
~ That his volume would reduce (not to a point like a singularity) but to a volume of perhaps 1% his current volume

I am also of the opinion that vibrations can interact to produce double the amplitude, or cancel eachother out to produce zero amplitude.

Also that everything has it's own resonant frequency.

Now if any of that is not true i'm open to correction, my A-levels were 8 years ago and i went into the design industry.

As for that article I said that I found it after a few minutes googling, the main point is that homeopathy is used in animals with success and that I don't see how they can have a placebo effect.

So quiet: Please discuss these following issues:

Alchemy ~ Madness or Enlightenment
Homeopathy ~ This is a scientific reason it cannot work
Vibrations ~ The effects of resonance on the human body
Gravity ~ How does it ACTUALLY work (yes, yes curved space time, but HOW)
Dreams ~ How and why do we dream / how does the mind actually work
Memory ~ This is how matts brain actually stores bits of information
The Placebo Effect ~ How and Why
Universe and the Mind ~ The Universe is Mental

Perhaps if I understand your position on these fundamentals then i'll start to comprehend your point of view. If you do not know precisely or if the science does not yet exist to explain something I would like you to make an educated guess at how future scientists will resolve these issues.

m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 19th May 2005

Written by: spherculist

---

As for Mr X, My understanding is:

~ That everything in the universe vibrates

---

No... thermal energy is not a vibration.

Written by: spherculist

---

~ That the hotter something is, the more the atoms are vibrating
~ The colder something is the less the atoms are vibrating
~ That Absolute zero is what... -273.15 degrees C (i think)
~ That no one has ever cooled anything to absolute zero

---

It is impossible to reach absolute zero - that's the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Written by: spherculist

---

~ That if spiralx' atoms were not vibrating he would be at Absolute zero

---

That's a non sequitor, it's not possible for my atoms to drop to zero kinetic energy i.e. no thermal motion.

Written by: spherculist

---

~ That volume is proportional to temperature

---

And pressure.

Written by: spherculist

---

~ That his volume would reduce (not to a point like a singularity) but to a volume of perhaps 1% his current volume

---

So? Absolute zero is unnattainable. What's your point? What does this talk of thermal energy (a completely different matter from anything to do with why atoms don't collapse) have to do with anything? Thermal energy isn't a vibration, it's kinetic energy in a random direction.

Written by: spherculist

---

I am also of the opinion that vibrations can interact to produce double the amplitude, or cancel eachother out to produce zero amplitude.

---

Opposite vibrations would cancel, completely the opposite of what that article said. It's like +1 + -1 = 0.

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Posted: 19th May 2005
thermal energy is not a vibration. Really? How bizarre, i always thought it was.

I know it's impossible to reach absolute zero, that's why i put 'if', just take it to mean 'as close as possible to absolute zero'.

"Thermal energy isn't a vibration, it's kinetic energy in a random direction." So what's the difference between that and a vibration? They sound the same to me.

So maybe i'm thinking of molecules and not atoms. Like I've said, it was years ago lol ??? But I thought it was the vibration that turns a solid to a liquid to a gas, due to temperature. And that as things cool down the vibrations of the atoms (probably molecules) reduces, the volume reduces proportionally and the pressure increases proportionally. And that if your molecules were not vibrating they would colapse down to a tiny percentage of there current volume, into a super dense solid. Is this not the case?

If not then i'm happy to admit i'm wrong. But thats as I remember my Alevel physics ???

Anyway spiralx perhaps you would be so kind as to answer some of the questions i've asked Quiet. I'd love to hear some of your educated guess work at how that stuff works. I'm not looking for your textbook "curved space time" stuff. I'm looking for a leap of faith based on scientific knowledge, i'm not going to nit pick your answers, i'm just curious.

a thoroughly baffled, m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 19th May 2005
'Like i say, I have no contradictory Beliefs and this is how I believe I and anyone else can manifest an individual Reality.'

Really? You genuinely think that you have no contradictory beliefs? I'm amazed, quite frankly - but I'm going to give up arguing about this.

As per requested, then:

'Alchemy ~ Madness or Enlightenment

Madness. Why? Because to change one element into another, you need to muck about with its proton number; nuclear fusion, fission, and radioactive decay all do this. Alchemy does not.

Homeopathy ~ This is a scientific reason it cannot work

Like I've said repeatedly - and as you have repeatedly ignored my saying - I'm not prepared to give a scientific reason why it cannot work. That would be ridiculous; I don't know enough to give a detailed account of its impossibility. Nor am I prepared to claim that it is impossible. All I've been saying is that there is no good reason to believe that it works; neither empirical evidence, nor an account of how it could work.

Vibrations ~ The effects of resonance on the human body

Ok, so: the human body has a specific frequency (actually, frequencies) at which it resonates. These are determined by mass and size. You can make parts of the body resonate, such as the eyes, by setting up standing waves in them; one way of doing this is by sitting in contact with something that vibrates, such as a dishwasher, or in a helicopter. These standing waves may distort your vision, in the case of the eyes, and have various other effects on other parts of your anatomy. But these effects are all physical, rather than chemical, and of no medical value (beyond relaxing the muscles, that is).

Gravity ~ How does it ACTUALLY work (yes, yes curved space time, but HOW)

What would count as a good enough explanation for you? For the theoretical physicist, the model of mass curving spacetime serves to explain how gravity actually works. Explanations of theoretical phenomena work within a theoretical framework, and in the absence of a theoretical framework the explanation will not function. You lack the theoretical framework, so no explanation of how gravity works will satisfy you.

Dreams ~ How and why do we dream / how does the mind actually work

No idea on either count. Indeed, many cognitive scientists are working very hard on accounts of dreaming. As to 'how does the mind actually work', the question is hopelessly vague. What sort of answer are you looking for? Would 'the mind is essentially computational' be in the right ball-park? Or do you want a Fodorean account of thought, construed as syntactic operations over the symbols of an innate conceptual schema? Or would an account of how synapses and neurons work do? Remember, the mind is an extremely complex entity, and a full account of how it works would also be hugely complex. There are some pop science books out there worth a read, though.

Memory ~ This is how matts brain actually stores bits of information

Again, I don't know. Do you mean 'in what form is the information stored?' or do you mean 'how is memory formed?'. There is quite a bit in the experimental psychology literature about this. Suffice to say that it's largely chemical, and that's about all I know.

The Placebo Effect ~ How and Why

Why? Because people's beliefs affect their behaviour. How? Ditto.

Universe and the Mind ~ The Universe is Mental

No it bloody well isn't: it's physical, although it contains mental entitities (by which I mean 'entities with minds'). If there weren't any people, the universe would still exist. Unless you mean 'the universe is crazy', which is possible. Here is one disanalogy between the universe and the mental: the mental is essentially intentional (that is, thoughts are about things), while the universe lacks such representational content. See Churchland: Matter and Consciousness for a quick reader on the subject.

I'm not in the business of making educated guesses about how scientists will resolve things in the future, because, to be brutally honest, I don't have any idea whatsoever. I'm an analytic philosopher with a background in experimental psychology, and a loose knowledge of theoretical physics and pure maths, not a scientist. I also think that such 'educated guesses' are (or certainly would be, in my case) utterly pointless: consider, how many Enlightenment 'scientists' would have been able to predict solutions to generating power, curing genetic malfunctions, infertility, and so on?

ture na sig

Posted: 19th May 2005
Thanks quiet, i'm just on my way out the door but thank you very much for taking the time to answer those questions I now see pretty much why we see things differently.

Alchemy: Has nothing to do with 'turning lead into gold', this is a metaphor for turning low vibrations (sorry spiralx but i'm talking the 'hippy' kind of vibrations here lol) into higher vibrations in a way that say a normal person (considered low vibration) to work toward a higher form of vibration such as a yogi might have. Quiet, you may be interested in reading about hermetic philosophy, although you have quite possibly been told to avoid it during your schooling. Hermes is the founder of Alchemy, they were secretive to an extent (hence the phrase 'hermetic seal') but there secrecy has ben misunderstood by many. 'The lips of wisdom are closed except to the ears of understanding'. ie they didn't tell everyone how great their knowledge was but if anyone had gone up to ask them then they would happily tell them everything because the act of asking them showed them that the person was ready to hear. They believed that there is a finite ammount of knowledge in the world, if everyone has a tiny bit then no one can accomplish anything worth while. If you are turned off Alchemy because ' you can't turn lead into gold' then i suggest you look a little deeper since this is exactly why they used such phrases, to stop the majority looking deeper.

Homeopathy: Totally agree with you, it cannot be proved or disproved at present, the difference being I am willing to bend modern thinking as much as i like to dream of how it might be possible and you are not. So you don't have any reason to believe it works, I do because I've seen that 10 years of taking antihystamines didn't control my hayfever, 2 years of taking arsen alb has helped remarkably, if i don't take arsen alb then my hayfever returns. I cannot explain this (evidently lol) but for what ever reason it works for me. Have you ever taken a course of homeopathy?

Yep, yep, yep up until The Placebo effect: The Mind effects your physical nature and vise verse IMO.

The most interesting point i find is your belief about the Universe being purely Physical. This I think is where we differ most in our beliefs. I'm of the opinion that the Universe is a mental creation of (for lack of a better word) God. I believe, when you or i have a creative thought 'out of the blue', this is exactly the same process as the Big Bang in our universe. Except the Mind of The All (god in christian terms) is of a higher plane than that of human creativity. Which leads me to believe that one can create ones own reality and Manifest ones dreams. I'm sure there must be a word for people who believe this, possibly mental lol.

Thanks again for clearing that up

m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 19th May 2005
ps " I'm an analytic philosopher with a background in experimental psychology" << you must adore me then

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 19th May 2005
Eeerrr, hmm. Not sure how this is really supposed to help StarPoi. If you want to debate the merits of perception/reality/quantum physics/molecular dynamics etc then perhaps you could start your own threads? (not an implied insult or anything, the entire post just seems to have wandered off topic slightly).

Having said that, 2 things:

What is everyone's explanation for "race memory"? Like the hairs on the back of your neck rising when you hear specific animal calls etc. Doesn't this show that (some) memory is not temporally based? Note that this is different to "reflex" actions such as jerking your hand away from fire.

Also, I still find it quite interesting that no-one has come up with an experiment to prove that this is reality. I'm perfectly aware that Descartes argues himself onto an Island, but how can we really be sure that anything we experience is "real"?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 19th May 2005
'race memorys' as you call them are instinctive reactions, not memory. They are exactly the same as your reaction when you put your hand on a hot surface. Using a different word to describe it doesn't change what it is.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 19th May 2005

Written by: spherculist

---

ps " I'm an analytic philosopher with a background in experimental psychology" << you must adore me then

---

That explains the 'clarity' of your posts, not to mention your 'understanding' of scientific concepts

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 20th May 2005
the response to my email to practicioner i'm seeing

Hi Beth,thank you for the extra info.we can discuss your questions when we
next meet.
many thanks
marar


thats it!! so i'm guessing, despite all his recommendations etc that he's just trying to screw money out of me...the next time we meet will cost £45! He said to me, 'any thing you want to ask just call/email. I won't charge you extra' ......because he won't answer the questions!!! If i do pursue homeopathy any further (which is looking less and less likely) it won't be with him. He won't even tell me whats in the stuff he is expecting me to take!

I wish my mother would stop being so trusting of people who say that they can make me better. She wants so badly for me to get better that she doesn't seem to be objective when finding new people to treat me. Saying that Marlborough House where he works from comes highly recommended, maybe its just him being wierd?

Posted: 20th May 2005
warning: slightly off-topic post . . .

'The most interesting point i find is your belief about the Universe being purely Physical. This I think is where we differ most in our beliefs. I'm of the opinion that the Universe is a mental creation of (for lack of a better word) God. I believe, when you or i have a creative thought 'out of the blue', this is exactly the same process as the Big Bang in our universe. Except the Mind of The All (god in christian terms) is of a higher plane than that of human creativity. Which leads me to believe that one can create ones own reality and Manifest ones dreams. I'm sure there must be a word for people who believe this, possibly mental lol.'

The Big Bang is supposed to be a model of how the universe came to be in its current state. Are you suggesting that God created the universe in its pre-big-bang state? Or that the entire affair is going on inside God's head, or mind?

When I have a creative thought, are you suggesting that something expands very rapidly, as in the big bang? I'm confused.

And if the universe is just something going on in God's mind, then surely it's determined by God - and hence shared by all - rather than created by individuals?

Last question: why think that the universe is going on inside God's head, anyway?

ture na sig

Posted: 20th May 2005
still completely off topic (except in the sense that you can heal yourseld through positive thinking): really should be in a separate post but i keep thinking it's gonna end soon lol

No no, look this is hard to explain, especially since we see the world completely differently.

"Are you suggesting that God created the universe in its pre-big-bang state? Or that the entire affair is going on inside God's head, or mind? "

No, assume you are about to have an inreadibly creative idea, one of those ones that slaps you upside the head from completely out of nowhere. A minute before the idea hits you there is no idea at all. For whatever reason you get that creative spark, you are not in control of that spark, it just seems to happen, "out of the blue". It is a moment of mental creation. This is similar in type but of a far lesser order, i think, to how the universe began. As a moment of Divine Creation. Just as your mind (IMO) is not inside your head, the Mind of The All (god if you like) is not in the head of god.

"When I have a creative thought, are you suggesting that something expands very rapidly, as in the big bang?" Yes sort of. So lets assume that a second ago you had a most wonderful spark of inspiration. It's like an entire universe (of a lesser order to the one we are in) has exploded in your mind for you to explore, at that instant (if it's a really immersive idea) you will be separated from what's going on around you, totally immersed in this little universe in your mind.

And if the universe is just something going on in God's mind, then surely it's determined by God - and hence shared by all - rather than created by individuals?

It's not necessarily happening on a conscious level for god, (i dislike using the word god cos it conjures up images of an old man with a beard but you get my drift) so it's not being determined by god. It's not so much that its created by individuals more like there are certain possibilities and you get to change directions along the way.

why think that the universe is going on inside God's head, anyway? Like i've said i don't think we are inside gods head. But there is as much reason to believe the Universe is 'Mental, Emotional and Physical' as there is to believe the Universe is purely Physical

m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 20th May 2005
on topic:

Starpoi: your homeopath sounds like a bit of a loser. But don't get turned away from 'alternative' medicine because of this one guy. I've had exactly the same kind of treatment by western doctors.

So no ones been able ot tell you what might be wrong? Do you think it's a trapped nerve or something like that? It doesn't sound like something homeopathy would be the best option for. With something like that I would certainly go for some really good massage, again there are good ones and bad ones, good people and bad people. Massage could certainly releive some pain and a talented masseuse may be able to help you more than that.

Acupuncture and acupressure can work wonders, i've never used it but i have friends who've found it really good. Including one girl who had terrible pains from a trapped nerve in her shoulder.

I have had reflexology on my feet. That is totally bonkers. I was 100% sceptical and came out about 10% sceptical.

Maybe iridology would help, i've never had it but again i've heard it amazing what they can tell you.

I would stay away from reiki unless you happen to know someone who is particularly good at it, there are a lot of dodgy reiki healers about.

But if you don't trust the homeopath, ditch him.

m

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Posted: 20th May 2005
Spherculist, is there anything you don't believe in? Having an open mind isn't the same as avoiding critical thinking. Also stop the atempts at science, you're embarassing yourself. (I'm not getting at you, but you really have no clue, sorry).

This homeopath sound like he isn't used to someone asking him questions. Give him hell, starpoi.

According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Posted: 20th May 2005
I sent the homeopath another email because he did say that he was willing to answer any questions i had if i emailed him or phoned him and i can't see why he can't answer the simple question of what is in the remedies. I also made it clear that if he wasn't prepared to answer my questions, i would not be returning for further treatment.

Spherculist, i'm not sure if you read my post where i went into more detail about my condition(my third post on page 1) but it's nothing like a trapped nerve, if only it was that simple!! My whole body is affected and i have have nerve conduction tests on my arms in the past for thoracic outlet syndrome and nothing showed up. My condition is more related to ME and fibromyalgia.

I agree acupuncture is great (but its nothing to do with the flow of chi!) I often get spasming muscles in my back, arms and legs, and acupuncture is great for stopping the spasm. I have the needles inserted right into the muscle (its horrid and makes me feel sick!) the muscle sort of 'twangs' and then relaxes and i am left feeling much more comfortable. My accupunturist is a GP who trained as an accupuncturist so that he could combine his knowledge of the body with accupuncure. I would definately recommmend accupuncture by this kind of practicioner, it makes much more sense to me than chinese accupuncture.

I've enjoyed reading the debate that you've all been having, its been interesting reading! I'm not really one for getting into lengthy arguments in forums which is why i have tried to stay out of it!!

Posted: 20th May 2005
re: homeopathy, i think your approach is sound. don't let these people lead you up the garden path; if they're not prepared to be open, then don't waste your time with them.

likewise with any doctor, tbh, but i suspect that there are more quacks practising as homeopaths than as 'conventional' doctors. not that i think homeopathy is necessarily quackery, but the entrance exams aren't quite as rigorous

re: the off-topic stuff; esp. spherculist

i'm surprised that you don't think that the mind is inside the head: if you think it exists elsewhere, then why be so worried when someone threatens to drive a nine-inch spike between your ears? and why is it that chemicals which affect the brain change your state of mind? and why is it that trauma to certain parts of the brain changes your mental abilities in certain predictable ways (such as lesion-induced aphasias, where trauma to a part of the brain damages your ability to process language)? why is it that all creatures with similar brains possess minds, if not that the mind and the brain are the same?

personally, i think that the mind is , identical to the brain (broadly construed). it's the best account of the phenomena which we observe when we look at how physical changes lead to mental changes. i'm happy to enter into email discussion about this: im4985@bristol.ac.uk, if you fancy it.

what i *am* puzzled by is your claim that the universe is 'emotional, mental, and physical.' you see, I think there is a sense in which it's true to say that 'the universe is physical', meaning 'everything that exists in the universe is physical.' now that doesn't mean that there can't also be mental entities; just that, if there are any, they are identical to physical entities. why should you think that the universe is physical in this sense? quite simply, because the physical universe is causally closed. that is, there are no physical effects without physical causes. these 'physical causes' can also be mental, as when i go to the fridge because I've decided that I'm going to get a beer, but they must have some physical manifestation. furthermore, our best reason for thinking that something exists is that we can observe, or infer, an effect; that is, there has to be some evidence in order for us to think that e.g. God exists. a paradigm case of this is miracles: if you believe that a miracle has happened, then that gives you reason to think that God exists, since the miracle has to have a cause of some sort. but then, I don't believe in miracles.

any chance you could clarify 'I'm of the opinion that the Universe is a mental creation of (for lack of a better word) God.', please?

cheers

p.s. many, many apologies starpoi for hijacking the thread in this way. but it does kind of bear on the issue of whether homeopathy is a good idea: i.e. questions such as 'what counts as evidence', or 'could homeopathy work'. anyhow, I hope you find something that works.

ture na sig

Posted: 20th May 2005

Written by: jeff(fake)

---

Spherculist, is there anything you don't believe in? Having an open mind isn't the same as avoiding critical thinking. Also stop the atempts at science, you're embarassing yourself. (I'm not getting at you, but you really have no clue, sorry).

---

I don't think, at this point, sphericulist is making attempts at science. What he's talking about seems to be a view of the world as a manifestation of the mind of 'God'; this is a well established and standard view in new-agey circles.



No scientific experiment will ever prove or disprove such a view as it's outside the sphere of things that can be experimentally confirmed.



I agree that it's a little wearing when believers in this kind of view insist on using pseudo-science to try and substantiate it (with quantum physics being a favourite in this kind of thing).



Personally, I'm more impressed by the potential effectiveness of such views, ie whether adopting them improves peoples lives. That goes for alternative healing systems too; as far as I'm concerned, if using system X leads to consistent improvements in ones life, then subjecting it to scientific analysis is not a priority.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Posted: 20th May 2005
This again goes back to the fact that the utility of an idea is unconnected to the truth of an idea - for instance the placebo effect. Many people derive a lot of comfort and use from their belief in a religion or philosophy of some kind... but that doesn't make their belief true

"Moo," said the happy cow.

Posted: 20th May 2005
Is truth really a relevant word to use in this context? I mean, if it's helping someone, with no drawbacks, then how can the issure of "Truth" come into it? Whether their beliefs are "True" or not is entirely their own affair unless they start trying to impose their views on others.

And if their beliefs help them to get better from illness, who are you to criticise the "truth" of their beliefs? You don't have the illness, so how about backing off from criticising them?

(Please note I'm not talking to any specific person here, it's just a general point)

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 20th May 2005
Sethis: just because a false belief helps someone doesn't mean that there isn't something to be gained from working out the truth. This might result in a criticism of their belief, sure, but that's unproblematic. Here's why:

Suppose that someone believes (falsely) that, in order to improve their health, they need to eat good food, at precise times of the day, and to say an incantation while walking widdershins around their kitchen three times before eating. As it happens, this belief helps them: if they eat properly, at regular times of the day, and say the incantations, their health improves. But the bit that matters is that they eat properly and regularly: the bit that makes the belief false isn't contributing in any way shape or form, and can be disposed of. Furthermore, it might even be getting in the way.

More generally, some beliefs may be useful, even if false; now I'm quite happy to let people go about their lives with these beliefs. What they do in their own time is their own business. But if what matters to them is 'what works', rather than 'what is true', then they can avoid criticism by avoiding putting forward those ideas in public. There's no obligation to refrain from criticising falsehood when it's put forward into the public domain, sethis.

Of course, even if false beliefs work, true beliefs generally work better (yes, I know there are counterexamples, but they are few and far between). And some of us think that the truth matters.

ture na sig

Posted: 20th May 2005
But why do you need to interfere? I mean, if it cures them, makes them healthy etc. then why criticise? If they believe that it's helping them, how can it get in the way?

I agree with your point completely, if you put nonsensical beliefs in a public forum, then expect them to be criticised, and if you can't handle it then don't put them there.

My point is whether it matters if you believe something a bit weird, if *in addition* to perfectly logical practises it helps you along?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 20th May 2005
Oh, and I do think that "The Truth" matters, in *Most* circumstances.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 20th May 2005
I think I haven't understood what you mean by 'interfere'

I don't go chasing people with crazy beliefs, and attempting to ram 'the truth' [whatever that is] down their throats.

Why criticise? Because true beliefs are as likely to make them healthy as false ones. The problem is that their belief that X is helping them is likely to make them rely on X. If there's a better solution, they'll ignore it, because they think that X is the answer. And because it is by the process of criticism, debate, discussion, and research, that the truth is most likely to out.

Does it matter if you believe something a bit weird in addition to the other stuff? Well, maybe not. I'm sure I've got some crazy (and false) ideas which I'm not aware of, but, on the other hand, I'd think that someone was doing me a favour if they pointed them out. It depends on what the other weird stuff is; whether it's just an ineffectual add-on, or whether it's something which you rely. Relying on falsehoods is generally a bad move IMO.

ture na sig

Posted: 20th May 2005
I mean rounding on them in forums and shouting at them

Sorry, that was a joke. Please don't take it seriously.

Well I'm assuming that the people who believe are sensible, rather than Dogmatic, and are open to debate about whatever they believe. Also, to clarify "their belief that X is helping them is likely to make them rely on X" This is exactly what I'm saying, but for me "X" is a personal belief COMBINED with a scientifically provable cure/remedy (like your food analogy earlier).

I agree that relying on falsehoods is a bad move... got enough personal experience there.

Oh, btw thanks for the intellectual discussions. That goes for everyone else too.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Posted: 20th May 2005
Where alternative views of reality, and alternative health systems are concerned though, it's generally not a case of relying on falsehoods that , in some way, seem to help.

Rather it's a matter of relying on things that seem to help which are not known to be true or false.

An example being the subject of this thread- homeopathy; it's not known whether it works or not.

It may even be a case of relying on things which we not only do not know whether they are true or false, but which can't be proved or disproved even in principle. An example would be world views that claim the world is the manifestation of Gods mind.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!