To expound, examples will probably be the best. Here are a few:
- Kim Jong-il: Kim Jong-il was the supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. He had absolute power over his country, and he wanted that power over the world, fully prepared to do whatever it took to have it. He threatened to "wipe out the US" several times. His beliefs make the world I live in more dangerous than it needs to be.
- Terry Jones: Terry Jones is a Christian Pastor in the US who burned a copy of the Koran in protest of another Christian Pastor being held in prison in Iran. Donning a shirt that *had "Infidel" printed on it, he ignited a copy of the Koran. Naturally, this upset Muslims, many of whom already hate the US, enough to want us all dead.
So, both the "Holy Bible" and the "Holy Qu'ran" condone the killing of the "infidel"(nonbelievers). Fortunately, most Christians ignore that passage because they are at least smart enough to know that killing people for what they believe(or don't believe) is not reasonable/ethical. Sadly, there are sects of Muslims who take their Qu'rans literally and they want non-Muslims DEAD. Their beliefs make the world I live in a more dangerous place than it needs to be.
There are other beliefs that are more benign, but yet, still affect us. For example, many proponents of the "New Age" movement believe that things like "Homeopathy", "Crystals", "Reflexology", and "Touch Therapy" can cure disease. Many patients who believe in and use these methods actually become more sick, and in rare cases, even die, opting for such treatments in lieu of the alternative, which is real, scientifically-tested medicine.
Now, while these beliefs don't make the world I live in more dangerous, it is dangerous in other ways because they offer false hope. True, these things are claimed to "work" for some people, but in these cases, certain other things cannot be ruled out, such as placebo effect, real medicine used in conjunction with these things, and last but not least, pure coincidence.
So, in closing, if someone suggests that it's no use to care about people's beliefs, I'd say that he or she would be wrong, at best. And note, caring about people's beliefs doesn't and shouldn't mean that we believe that these people's minds can be changed about their respective beliefs. No, not at all. Most people will go to their graves with the beliefs they'd been handed by their family, friends, Pastors, Priests, and spiritual teachers. But there is a small of percentage of people willing to admit their errors and change their minds, and I was(am) one of those. This is how I know that having these discussions matters, and why I know that caring what people believe matters.
146 comments:
"Many patients who believe in and use these methods actually become more sick...".
Really? You have stats to back this up?
There is a really simple solution to this however. Making sure these people are part of a professional organization. This bounds them to work according to certain rules (so yes they can go to trial if they were to keep people away from regular health care). Also health insurance companies are more likely to pay for the treatments.
However, if a therapist would not have any positive results it would be likely they would loose any potential clients to begin with. I mean, why pay for something that doesn't work?
Over here the number of health insurance companies paying for these consults, have increased this year. So someone must believe something to be true :-).
" But there is a small of percentage of people willing to admit their errors and change their minds, and I was(am) one of those. This is how I know that having these discussions matters, and why I know that caring what people believe matters."
It's not just "caring" you talk about. You require evidence in order to possibly change. In this case one can wonder if someone wants to change if evidence has to be provided for first, unless one cannot obtain this evidence oneself.
If one really does not want to change this person neither will be part of this discussion, nor would he or she respond to possible credible evidence.
The only reason to care (and go that extra mile or more) would then be if the other person already cares enough to change on their own and would be willing to ask.
"Really? You have stats to back this up?"
Yes, really. And sure I do...
Here's an excerpt from a cancer doctor(Dr. Kate Maxwell) regarding one of her patients:
"Even more distressing is the story of one of my patients - a very personable young woman with breast cancer who keeps coming back to see me even though she doesn't accept any of my advice.
She could easily have been cured, but has refused surgery and conventional drugs in favour of hocus-pocus homeopathic remedies.
Her tumour is getting bigger and bigger and has pushed through her skin - there is now an ulcer where once there was a small lump. She dresses it with honey and God knows what else and she thinks it is getting better."
Here's a link to an article where a couple of jackasses killed their own daughter
Here's a link to an article talking about how Steve Jobs regretted using alternative medicine(acupuncture) to treat his cancer.
And then there's this.
'Need more?
There is NO debate: "Alternative medicine" is bullsh*t, and while not all forms kill people or make them sicker, there are a few that do, and from where I sit, that's a few too many. Alternative medicine is not proven to work, because if it was proven to work, do you know what it would be called instead of "alternative medicine"? It would be called this: MEDICINE.
"There is a really simple solution to this however. Making sure these people are part of a professional organization."
Define "professional". Someone who's been trained in their field? Someone trained in "Homeopathy" makes homeopathy safe, does it? Someone trained in crystal therapy can cure someone's gout using "crystal energy"?
It seems that you are attempting an argument from authority(fallacy)..i.e..a "professional" makes whatever said "professional" is selling effective/safe. This solution is to stop promoting that which does NOT work.
And BTW, ***just because someone "feels better" after a "treatment" does not mean they're getting better.
"However, if a therapist would not have any positive results it would be likely they would loose any potential clients to begin with. I mean, why pay for something that doesn't work?"
Positive results? As in a tumor disappearing? Or someone's inflamed knee feels better? If you mean the latter, see here***, above.
"It's not just 'caring' you talk about. You require evidence in order to possibly change. In this case one can wonder if someone wants to change if evidence has to be provided for first[....]"
Yes, we're both free to wonder that. I certainly would never deny you that right. Notwithstanding, I'm not going to change my mind about science being the most reliable method for knowing that which works for treating disease, and that which does not.
"The only reason to care (and go that extra mile or more) would then be if the other person already cares enough to change on their own and would be willing to ask."
I'm not sure what you're driving at. But let me be clear: I decide for myself why I might care(or not), as do you decide for yourself.
“Yes, really. And sure I do...”
I’m horrified by the examples. What happened to common sense? The first rule is to always consult a doctor first and never to get alternative medicine instead of regular medicine. This is unacceptable behaviour over here what’s described. This being said you might want to take a more critical look at regular treatments as well, doctors who are not investigating their patients properly and sending off way too soon, including ER’s. I’ve heard some horrific stories about people dying unnecessarily because of negligence of (mostly) the family doctor and not just one but way more in a short period of time. What all have in common is the lack of common sense.
“Define "professional". Someone who's been trained in their field?”
I mean an organization which makes sure each member (therapist) lives up to a certain standard and which will also hold the therapist accountable if something were to happen. This includes having insurance, but far more important there are legal rules to uphold. All of this besides proper training regarding anatomy, laws etc.
Please note that a doctor causing someone to get very ill (a child loosing a kidney for instance) or die unnecessarily, most of the time (if ever) does not get disciplined at all.
“Notwithstanding, I'm not going to change my mind about science being the most reliable method for knowing that which works for treating disease, and that which does not.”
I’ll never argue with you that science is the most reliable method. I wish could say the same thing when it comes to alternative medicine.
Two critical notes though when it comes to science or better regular medicine: 1) The lack of time per patient. 2) Looking at only one symptom or cause instead of the bigger picture. Adding to this that only if you speak the language of medicine, you get taken seriously straight away. Since I do, I’ve been able to get my father into hospital many times when necessary, whereas the family doctor didn’t even care to drop by. Why do I speak their language? Because I’ve been educated to do so as an alternative licensed therapist.
Adding to the requested "stats", this one probably hits a little closer to home. Here is a Dutch "psychic healer" known as "Jomanda".
Here's a description of her and her claims:
"Born Johanna Wilhelmina Petronella Damman in Deventer, Jomanda is a Dutch spiritualist who described herself as being 'a healing medium.' She claims to have psychic powers of clairvoyance, empathy and prescience, aided by her late father and other powers from the 'world divine'."
Again, this is part of why I care about people's beliefs.
"I’m horrified by the examples."
You should be.
"What happened to common sense?"
We're not talking about needless deaths attributed to lack of "common sense"; we're talking about needless deaths attributed to quackery.
"The first rule is to always consult a doctor first and never to get alternative medicine instead of regular medicine."
And there's a good reason for that.
"This being said you might want to take a more critical look at regular treatments as well, doctors who are not investigating their patients properly and sending off way too soon, including ER’s."
No, I don't need to look at that, thx. Here, you are trying to level things out by adding that people die at the hands of real doctors who practice real medicine as well. This is a red herring, AKA, smoke and mirrors. While what you point out may be true, it's got absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and that issue is quack-medicine VS real medicine. Please stay on the subject.
"I mean an organization which makes sure each member (therapist) lives up to a certain standard and which will also hold the therapist accountable if something were to happen."
I fail to see the sense in quacks checking each other. I wouldn't feel any better about getting my fortune told to me just because some other fortune teller double-checks their "work".
"Please note that a doctor causing someone to get very ill (a child loosing a kidney for instance) or die unnecessarily, most of the time (if ever) does not get disciplined at all."
Please stop putting real doctors under the microscope. Again, this is NOT the issue. Real doctors don't claim to cure every disease or heal every patient.
"Two critical notes though when it comes to science or better regular medicine: 1) The lack of time per patient. 2) Looking at only one symptom or cause instead of the bigger picture."
Your "critical notes" are noted, but for the third time in one post you've attempted to sidetrack the issue at hand. If you want to change the topic to, "The Disadvantages of Conventional Medicine and its Doctors", you are free to do so on your own blog.
“Here is a Dutch "psychic healer" known as "Jomanda".”
Yes we all know Jomanda and what happened to Sylvia Millecam. That’s the reason rules are so strict over here. It’s the only one I’ve heard of being repeated over and over again.
Me: "I mean an organization which makes sure each member (therapist) lives up to a certain standard and which will also hold the therapist accountable if something were to happen."
You: “I fail to see the sense in quacks checking each other. I wouldn't feel any better about getting my fortune told to me just because some other fortune teller double-checks their "work".”
Did you read that Jomanda was tried in court? That’s what I meant by being held accountable. We have to live up to the law. And such an organization obligates us to know the law and live up to it.
Is this different in America?
“Again, this is part of why I care about people's beliefs.”
Care or worry?
Did you see I moved most blog posts to another website? I'm sure you're able to find it on your own :-).
But could reflexology actually be dangerous? It could if it prevents someone from seeking legitimate medical care and that apparently is the fear of Ernst.
The above is an excerpt from a study that came from The Medical Journal from Australia(2009) regarding the technique known as "reflexology".
Note, although massaging the soles of the feet feels good, and I can attest to this having done this many times, the claims of reflexologist practitioners go far beyond just feeling good.
"That’s the reason rules are so strict over here."
It's just sad that someone had to die to get the rules more rigid.
"Did you read that Jomanda was tried in court? That’s what I meant by being held accountable. We have to live up to the law. And such an organization obligates us to know the law and live up to it."
Yes, I familiarized myself with the story. Maybe with enough examples of fraud being exposed and with enough debunking, the general population will start seeing the difference between quack-medicine..e.g..spiritual healers, reflexologists, homeopathy, etc., and real, science-based medicine.
"Is this different in America?
No, it's not different; we, of course, have laws, too.
"Care or worry?"
I don't see the relevance of the question. It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. Maybe there are instances of someone being worried over something they don't care about, but I've yet to see that.
You quoting article: “But could reflexology actually be dangerous? It could if it prevents someone from seeking legitimate medical care and that apparently is the fear of Ernst.”
I agree with this. Nothing new here. I’m the first one to send people to their doctor or specialist and resend them if questioned are not answered. Are you aware how many people do NOT feel like going to their doctor? They often come to me first and expect me to either reassure them or be send off to the doctor’s.
“…the claims of reflexologist practitioners go far beyond just feeling good…”
I’m aware. It’s the same with acupuncture. But even though these studies are very old, you said before you see it as pseudo-science, so…
I have experienced some of these effects first hand, especially those having to do with acupuncture and it absolutely can influence a person. And yes, depending on if people know what they are doing, this can be a bad influence as well.
“It's just sad that someone had to die to get the rules more rigid.”
I agree. It’s very sad that rules are required to get people to use their common sense. But you will probably say again that’s a “red herring”. There is something like responsibility. And when you talk about quacks and (well I believe you all see them as quacks), this is why education is so important. Long time education I might add on all kind of subjects having to do with health, but also ethics, law, you name it.
“Maybe with enough examples of fraud being exposed and with enough debunking, the general population will start seeing the difference between quack-medicine..e.g..spiritual healers, reflexologists, homeopathy, etc., and real, science-based medicine.”
I assume I still fall into this category… And yes, at this moment I’m not thinking very fond words when it comes to you and no, it will not keep me away from your blog, just because of this one sentence.
Me: I"Is this different in America?
You: “No, it's not different; we, of course, have laws, too.”
But do therapists have to be licensed as well as in be part of a professional organization? And do health insurance companies pay for these treatments?
Me: "Care or worry?"
You: “I don't see the relevance of the question. It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive.”
Well maybe that’s the root of all confusion with this question. If caring express worry or fear than this can either be because something can really go wrong (as in for instance killings), or it could be something more personal as in being important for someone’s self-esteem, and of course all else in between.
Do I need to be worried if you do not believe in the metaphysical? I think not. It won’t change the way I think about you, respect you any less, whether you do or not. Do I need to be worried of consequences because you do not believe in the metaphysical? Well, most likely not, except that you keep “challenging” me on your blog when you talk about evidence and I know I would like to do something with this “challenge”. And just maybe I should be worried because of the answers you’ll never accept on your blog or anywhere else for that matter.
There probably is one thing I’m having difficulty with and that’s you apparently seem to think that all alternative therapists (or at least those who claim to have knowledge) are quacks, including the ones who do use common sense, are educated yadda yadda... and who are actually having people feel better (whether because of placebo or not). And yes, because of this reasoning, I feel like I'm being judged by you as well.
Still I cannot hold it against you and I won’t. So whereas I do care that you may judge me because of part of my profession, I still do not see you any different as a person.
@lexji Stunning responses that totally avoid the general point of what you attempted to defend - it's no secret that jeff is analytically and relies on science, fact, experimentation and results ... so how to you respond to the challenge that most, if not all alternative medicine is quackery?
by attacking the deficiencies in conventional science and medicine - brilliant - why didn't i think of that? The sun is hot, so lets blow up the moon :/(sarcasm)
The first thought/action would seem to be, to bring proof that alternative medicines had vast successes and provide any number of statistic, studies and anecdotes to back it up ...NOPE - instead the whiny cry of how conventional medicine has deficiencies ... yeah, no shit Sherlock ...when profits, insurance companies and humans are involved, of course mistakes, questionable judgments and outright criminal behavior will be found with any responsible level of scrutiny.
And then you further "defend" alternative medicine by suggesting that alternative medicine providers "need" to be governed and registered by "Making sure these people are part of a professional organization."
Seriously? ... and then you totally crush your own argument here, by pointing out how conventional medicine providers - who as a profession have arguably the most intense oversight by laws and professional organizations and licencing boards - have these horrific deficiencies that supposedly make the "point" why people should turn to alternative medicine? It's not the oversight - it's the people.
logic has at minimum been turn on it's ear ... if not thrown out the window altogether with your contributions ... i get that you want to defend what you believe in and engage in ... but until you step back and approach the debate form an objective and dispassionate point of view ... you're just coming off as an overzealous loon
Apologies if the truth hurts. I'm trying to be informative with my criticism
But could reflexology actually be dangerous? It could if it prevents someone from seeking legitimate medical care[.....]
You: "I agree with this. Nothing new here."
From the onset, I charged that this (and other) alternative practices were dangerous, and in rare cases, can result in death. And while you're now agreeing with me, you previously asked for "stats" and were seemingly shocked that I could make such a statement. Nonetheless, I think I've provided sufficient sources that show the dangers in using at least one of these alternatives.
I’m the first one to send people to their doctor or specialist and resend them if questioned are not answered."
While it might be a good work ethic for you to send people to their respective doctors and/or specialists should they have questions or not be finding relief, etc., people with serious medical problems should be seeing these medical doctors and specialists before they delve into alternative stuff. If someone wants to believe in and use an unproven, alternative treatment to "supplement" a legit' medical treatment?..then that is their right. But again, it should be a supplement, not a substitute.
And if believing that such supplements actually work makes these people "feel better", fine. But again, many, dare I say most(all?) of these "New Age" practitioners claim much, much more than just a common, "feel good" placebo effect. That's were I and others take issue, and I really hope you understand this by now.
Me: …the claims of reflexologist practitioners go far beyond just feeling good…
You: "I’m aware. It’s the same with acupuncture. But even though these studies are very old, you said before you see it as pseudo-science, so…"
Yes, I do see most if not all of it as pseudoscience, and I make no apologies for this.
As to the practice of something being "very old", that means little to nothing. In fact, it's an argument from antiquity..e.g..X has been around for a long time, therefore X is true.
"I have experienced some of these effects first hand, especially those having to do with acupuncture and it absolutely can influence a person."
I'm curious, under which category do you think that bit of disclosure falls:
a) scientific evidence
b) anecdotal evidence
c) other
If "c", feel free to explain.
"And yes, depending on if people know what they are doing, this can be a bad influence as well"
You now introduce a new word..e.g.."influence". Medical doctors aren't trained to "influence" disease away. So, I take it you mean, influence one's frame of mind..e.g..make them feel better. If so, that would be fine, but again, acupuncturists claim much more than that. They make claims from balancing one's "spirit" to treating AIDS.
"And when you talk about quacks and (well I believe you all see them as quacks), this is why education is so important. Long time education I might add on all kind of subjects having to do with health, but also ethics, law, you name it."
I see education on the points you mention as important. However, if one is practicing pseudo-science, chances are, they either don't know(and maybe don't care to know) that they're practicing it, or maybe they *do* know and they're doing it to bilk the gullible for their cash. That would constitute a "quack"(see, Jomanda).
In either case, I don't think any amount of education on the things you mention is going to stop them.
"I assume I still fall into this category…"
You know by now what my criteria is(that of the scientific community's criteria). But again, it's not a personal thing, as I'd be equally skeptical of things in that "category".
contin.....
"And yes, at this moment I’m not thinking very fond words when it comes to you and no, it will not keep me away from your blog, just because of this one sentence."
Trust me, I've been called worse than what you're thinking. Of course, **what people think of each other has no bearing on reality; the "truth" goes on being the truth.
"But do therapists have to be licensed as well as in be part of a professional organization? And do health insurance companies pay for these treatments?"
There's all sorts of "therapists", from rehab, to marriage, to psychology, to family, and on and on. And then of course, a "therapist" can just be one who practices therapy. There's "magnet therapy", "crystal therapy",and many more. I can't say for certain, but I highly doubt that any insurance companies pay for anything unproven.
"If caring express worry or fear than this can either be because something can really go wrong (as in for instance killings), or it could be something more personal as in being important for someone’s self-esteem, and of course all else in between."
I think caring and worrying go hand in hand when it comes to well being. Maybe not so much when it comes to who wins the World Series.
"Do I need to be worried if you do not believe in the metaphysical? I think not."
Only you know what you "need".
"It won’t change the way I think about you, respect you any less, whether you do or not."
I've talked briefly about this, here**, above.
"Do I need to be worried of consequences because you do not believe in the metaphysical?"
I'm unaware of any "consequences" for my disbelief in the metaphysical, yours, or my own.
"[...]you keep 'challenging' me on your blog when you talk about evidence and I know I would like to do something with this 'challenge'."
You are the one viewing it as a "challenge". From where I sit, I'm just a guy asking for evidence from someone who came and found me here.
"And just maybe I should be worried because of the answers you’ll never accept on your blog or anywhere else for that matter."
Location of where I reject something is unimportant.
"There probably is one thing I’m having difficulty with and that’s you apparently seem to think that all alternative therapists (or at least those who claim to have knowledge) are quacks, including the ones who do use common sense, are educated[...]
A "quack-therapy" is simply a pejorative term for an unproven therapy.
"[...]and who are actually having people feel better (whether because of placebo or not). And yes, because of this reasoning, I feel like I'm being judged by you as well."
I'll say it again: I am equally skeptical of ALL people who claim *unproven* alternative techniques, therapies, methods, etc. ***You are caught in the crossfire of my disdain for such things because *you* chose to walk into it by coming here and chiming in, despite that in my "About Me" section I am very forthright about what I do here and why I do it.
"Still I cannot hold it against you and I won’t."
This is good to know, albeit, I thought it went without saying.
"So whereas I do care that you may judge me[...]
I am not judging you; I am judging the entire alternative medicine community. You are caught in the crossfire. See here***, above
You: “But could reflexology actually be dangerous? It could if it prevents someone from seeking legitimate medical care[.....]”
Me: "I agree with this. Nothing new here."
You: “From the onset, I charged that this (and other) alternative practices were dangerous, and in rare cases, can result in death. And while you're now agreeing with me, you previously asked for "stats" and were seemingly shocked that I could make such a statement.”
I was shocked because you said the following: "Many patients who believe in and use these methods actually become more sick...".
The “many” part I still do not agree with. I do agree with that any therapist (of sort of therapist) can prevent someone from seeing a doctor, with the result of possible getting more ill or even dying. This I agree with.
“Nonetheless, I think I've provided sufficient sources that show the dangers in using at least one of these alternatives.”
As for the many examples, it’s not like those are new to me, unfortunately. I feel like I (and the other professional therapists out there) have to defend myself against those people who think they can do something and do not take any responsibility whatsoever.
“…people with serious medical problems should be seeing these medical doctors and specialists before they delve into alternative stuff….But again, it should be a supplement, not a substitute.”
True.
“That's were I and others take issue, and I really hope you understand this by now.”
I do. I think about it often when working with people. What’s actually happening and why? I wish I could answer that question and if so, without a doubt.
“As to the practice of something being "very old", that means little to nothing. In fact, it's an argument from antiquity..e.g..X has been around for a long time, therefore X is true.”
I was thinking about this. First I thought about all those people having studied these methods (having to do with for instance meridians) and who have tested and applied this and then next I thought… “How was this related to that other book again, called the Bible?” That’s the moment I was thinking: “OK, that’s also very ancient, studied a lot and still we can question it’s validity”. Conclusion, antiquity doesn’t say too much. I do believe there must be some truths behind those meridians though (call me stubborn, but I have seen too many people working with these).
Me: "I have experienced some of these effects first hand, especially those having to do with acupuncture and it absolutely can influence a person."
You: “I'm curious, under which category do you think that bit of disclosure falls:”
Can I do something to you from behind my laptop now? Yes, that’s admitting I knew when I wrote this down you would say something about it. I am aware it’s a personal anecdote, however… it’s not on my account as a therapist and it wasn’t to defend the method.
Me: "And yes, depending on if people know what they are doing, this can be a bad influence as well"
You: “So, I take it you mean, influence one's frame of mind..e.g..make them feel better.”
Well yes, influence of the mind, or at least the system (hormones and all), however not making them feel any better, on the contrary. This bit falls under c) other, but being still a personal anecdote (even for the worse), I’ll refrain from telling… :-(
“...acupuncturists claim much more than that. They make claims from balancing one's "spirit" to treating AIDS.”
They do? As far as I can tell they “balance” in energy and with it increase one’s system to heal itself. Don’t know how this would apply to “curing AIDS”.
“In either case, I don't think any amount of education on the things you mention is going to stop them.”
This would indicate they do not learn when studying. I still think the problem is a combination of the lack of studying, a lack of common sense, and with it the lack of responsibility.
Continued…
“Trust me, I've been called worse than what you're thinking. Of course, **what people think of each other has no bearing on reality; the "truth" goes on being the truth.”
Might be true, but some people do get influenced by what others are thinking of them.
“I can't say for certain, but I highly doubt that any insurance companies pay for anything unproven.”
That’s a big difference compared to over here. Note: It will only get paid for if people have studied the basics when it comes to medicine and are part of an organisation, looking out for the client’s/patient’s needs. The sad thing is that I’ve got my license based on the one thing that’s not to be proven, whereas the areas we know off to make a change are not paid for. Why? Because I haven’t studied another 4 years at this required level for these studies. And sorry, there are limits to what I consider to be acceptable in order to have a license.
“You are the one viewing it as a "challenge". From where I sit, I'm just a guy asking for evidence from someone who came and found me here.”
You are a real “Sweetheart”… sigh… You cannot just talk about the JRF and then expect me to "just" come up with that sort of evidence. The fact that it’s not easily given, makes it a “challenge”, unless of course I do not intent/want to provide either of us with any evidence.
Me: "Still I cannot hold it against you and I won’t."
You: “This is good to know, albeit, I thought it went without saying.”
Well I thought so too, until you said something in the introduction of this thread: “So, in closing, if someone suggests that it's no use to care about people's beliefs, I'd say that he or she would be wrong, at best.” This seemed to me like a direct response to what I’d written on my own blog: “I sincerely believe it’s no use to care (or not) about someone else’s beliefs. Caring – to me – would almost be comparable to judging. All we can do is understand the other one’s point of view and if possible support the other person.”
It seemed somewhat contradictive and that’s why I felt it to be important to let you know how I felt about this/you.
@Bobbie:
“... i get that you want to defend what you believe in and engage in ... but until you step back and approach the debate form an objective and dispassionate point of view ... you're just coming off as an overzealous loon. Apologies if the truth hurts. I'm trying to be informative with my criticism.”
Bobbie one of the reasons I try not to respond straight away is to avoid any emotional outbursts. So yes I know my pitfalls. And this subject was a really sore one. I can get so sick and tired of people always telling how this profession is one big fraud. Also knowing that a large part of this is based on truth… And trust me, I am thinking of what I can do in order to make it more sensible, as in coming up with evidence. But that’s a lot easier said than done.
Apologies for the strange constructions and words which shouldn't be used (as in are obsolete). I keep missing these the first time around when rereading the whole lot.
"...get so sick and tired of people always telling how this profession is one big fraud"
WHy do you find it your responsibility to accept the complete burden of justifying an entire profession and all professionals that practice?
Problems seems you're trying to prove something that is unprovable ... to people who are very skeptical ... that's a heavy lift to take on that isn't really your responsibility
Look - there are people who believe your service works, and it makes them feel better ... there is nothing wrong with making people feel better and getting compensated to do so ... the problem comes when your profession tries to over promise what it cannot deliver and there's no proof or supporting evidence that it ever could deliver
It's key to know your limitations and work within the constraints ... but no, you wish and want your profession to be more, deliver more ... and it simply cannot.
Like an automotive shop that only does oil changes cannot promise or realistically hope to deliver a complete engine rebuild ... your profession cannot heal cancer or aids ... so why are you fighting to try and prove it does? ... make people feel better with your wares IN CONJUNCTION with real and responsible conventional medicine and science ... do this responsibly ... foster good will with your patients and potential patients that you can relax them in their time of stress ... there is value in that ... and if your peers what to make promises that are unrealistic and they cannot keep - be an honorable ambassador of your profession and let people know that those practitioners cannot do the things they promise
but instead you keep choosing to defend those charlatans - and that just make you look foolish and comically deluded
live reality - don't try to make fiction real
I'll respond in more detail later, but for the time being, this part stands out and finally puts the cards on the table:
"I can get so sick and tired of people always telling how this profession is one big fraud" ~ Lady Lexje
This is what it boils down to, but too bad it takes a mile-long thread to get to the hub of what's really going on.
Memo: If you are SICK AND TIRED of having your chosen "profession" critiqued and labeled "fraud" or quack-science, then for the love of pete, either, a) prove to the scientific community that said "profession" and the associated techniques..e.g.."distant healing", "touch healing", [doing X, Y, and Z] with "energy", etc., have a referent in reality, or b) stop the ballyhooing and objecting to people who don't accept your beliefs; stop with the personal anecdotes; stop with the emotionally charged arguments(and worse, fallacious arguments) and be on your merry way. Yes. You are perfectly free to hang out with like-minded people on the other side of the planet and on your own blog and not be "challenged" or bothered. My patience is wearing thin with this sh*t. Seriously.
"I was shocked because you said the following: 'Many patients who believe in and use these methods actually become more sick...'." ~ L
Then you add...
"The 'many' part I still do not agree with"
So, your objection is with the word "many", is it? Okay, then how about if I change it to this: "too many"???? Yes, because, from where I sit, if just ONE person dies at the hands of some quack, self-acclaimed "spiritual healer" and their shady, unproven techniques, then that is one person TOO MANY.
Previously, me: “Nonetheless, I think I've provided sufficient sources that show the dangers in using at least one of these alternatives.”
You: "As for the many examples, it’s not like those are new to me, unfortunately."
Really? Then why the following reaction once I posted the "stats" you asked for....
"I’m horrified by the examples." ~ L
While such a reaction doesn't necessarily mean the "stats" are new to you, it does give that impression. On the other hand, if they aren't new to you, then it makes me wonder why you ASKED for the "stats" to begin with if you knew they were there. This raises an eyebrow. Then again, much of what you type does.
"I feel like I (and the other professional therapists out there)[....]"
You are now adding the qualifier, "professional", as if trying to make a distinction between you and other practitioners of the same "spiritual" techniques and beliefs. This is a rendition of "No True Scotsman" fallacy.(look it up; don't ask)
"(I feel like I) have to defend myself against those people who think they can do something and do not take any responsibility whatsoever."
And I reiterate---this is NOT about those practitioners who do not take responsibility [for X going wrong], Vs those who do take responsibility [for X going wrong]; this is about those practitioners who ENDORSE and use methods and techniques that are NOT proven and accepted by science, Vs those who don't.
Here's a suggestion: If you don't want to be seen as disingenuous, then I suggest your refrain from the above disingenuous "smoke 'n mirrors" tactic.
"I think about it often when working with people. What’s actually happening and why? I wish I could answer that question and if so, without a doubt."
Here's the rub: You don't need an absolute/definitive/"without a doubt" answer to know what is most likely "happening"(or what is most likely not happening). You are making an appeal to ignorance, a la, "welp, I'm not sure what's happening and why, so that must mean my metaphysical are working".
"[....]and then next I thought… 'How was this related to that other book again, called the Bible?' That’s the moment I was thinking: 'OK, that’s also very ancient, studied a lot and still we can question it’s validity'."
Not only "question it", but disprove it.
"Conclusion, antiquity doesn’t say too much. I do believe there must be some truths behind those meridians though (call me stubborn, but I have seen too many people working with these)."
So, you concede that your "antiquity" argument fails, but then you turn right around and employ an argument from large numbers(fallacy)..e.g..I've seen soooo many people working with people's palms that I just cannot deny palm-reading. Call me stubborn.
'No difference.
contin....
"Yes, that’s admitting I knew when I wrote this down you would say something about it."
Yes, good ol' intuition, yet, you completely ignored that intuition.....this time. IOW, you knew your error would elicit a rebuke, yet, you did it anyway. Outstanding, thx for wasting both of our time.
"I am aware it’s a personal anecdote, however… it’s not on my account as a therapist and it wasn’t to defend the method."
At this point, I don't give a rat's hindquarters why you offered another completely useless anecdote. I just wish you would stop doing it.
Me: "acupuncturists claim much more than that. They make claims from balancing one's 'spirit' to treating AIDS."
You: They do? As far as I can tell they 'balance' in energy and with it increase one’s system to heal itself. Don’t know how this would apply to 'curing AIDS'."
Then it would befit you to investigate the claims, I think. And BTW, I said "treat", not "cure".
Me: “In either case, I don't think any amount of education on the things you mention is going to stop them.”
You: "This would indicate they do not learn when studying. I still think the problem is a combination of the lack of studying, a lack of common sense, and with it the lack of responsibility."
Uh-huh, and you would think wrong. You are still harping on "responsibility" and "common sense", while this is not the root of the objection/issue. That root, AGAIN, is using/endorsing UNPROVEN pseudo-science and marketing said "science" as MORE than what it can actually do, which is work as a "feel good" placebo, or if you insist, influencing people's minds to believe that a treatment has done more for them that what it actually has.
Moreover - and what I find interesting - is I cannot help but see that you are exactly like the liberal Christian who points his or her finger at the fundamentalist Christian and says things like, "You must use common sense when reading the bible!"....or, "You're not following Jesus!". Meanwhile, the one saying this believes in talking snakes.
"Common sense", in deed.
"You are a real 'Sweetheart'… sigh…"
I'm considering the source.
"You cannot just talk about the JRF and then expect me to 'just' come up with that sort of evidence."
As I said previously, I do *not* expect such evidence from you. Good grief, it's not as if I sit here and actually believe that Lady Lexje "holds the key" to a hereto forth unproven supernatural(aka "metaphysical") realm. Please.
"[....] you said something in the introduction of this thread: 'So, in closing, if someone suggests that it's no use to care about people's beliefs, I'd say that he or she would be wrong, at best."
Yes, that's correct, I said that.
"This seemed to me like a direct response to what I’d written on my own blog: 'I sincerely believe it’s no use to care (or not) about someone else’s beliefs. Caring – to me – would almost be comparable to judging. All we can do is understand the other one’s point of view and if possible support the other person'."
Yes, yes....it was in response to that. And? BTW, I don't buy into the notion that "caring" about a subject or person is casting "judgment". How you arrive at such a thing is beyond me.
"It seemed somewhat contradictive and that’s why I felt it to be important to let you know how I felt about this/you"
I have zero clue which part/parts of what I said you believe to be "contradictory" and why. But like I said above, you are walking on thin ice around here, and I'm about over it.
BTW, relocating fallacious arguments and/or poor reasoning doesn't "correct" those arguments or reasoning.
The following are excerpts from a blog that advocates the metaphysical as a legit' alternative to real, scientifically proven medicine....
"Therapy clearly states that you are dealing with a therapist."
Here, the author is generalizing and being vague, and this is most likely to get the field of "alternative therapy" that they advocate in under the radar.
There are literally hundreds of different types of "therapy", each with their respective "therapists". The fact that they might all be called "therapy" doesn't mean that they are all plausible therapies.
"One week of courses or training does not make you an expert in any field; neither does three for that matter."
Here, the author is actually correct. However, their point is moot, considering that no amount of training makes an unproven field a legit' field. For instance, a physical therapist with only 3 weeks of training is going get my respect, as well as the respect of the scientific community, way before a "metaphysical therapist" with 3 years of training will get that same respect. Again, it *depends* on the field of therapy that is being examined/scrutinized.
Unfortunately most people are not aware there are levels of expertise within these various fields of expertise."
At face value it seems reasonable enough. But dig a little deeper and we see that the "highest level of expertise" of, say, a reflexology therapist, doesn't mean diddly-squat if reflexology is pseudo-science, AKA, quack science(and it is). The author misses (or circumvents) this crucial point.
"Sure, alternative medicine can increase people’s health, but always keep in mind it is something which is done as an additional means, not as the main form of treatment."
Here, the author is right when they say that "alternative medicine" should be used only to supplement traditional medicine; not as a substitute. And as the astute among us know, there is a good reason for this.
"A therapist would at least be able to tell you what they think is helping you out. When looking from a scientific point of view, answers are less simple."
Whether or not a therapist would like to be able to tell his or her client why they think a given treatment is working beclouds the issue. If a therapist cannot explain to you in modern terms, terms that stem from modern medicine, why a treatment is working, this should raise an eyebrow. Moreover, if a therapist starts using metaphysical or New Age jargon, neither of which have any proven basis in reality, this should be cause for concern.
"Alternative therapy may not have been proven scientifically, but there is always something like common sense to judge yourself, whether it is helped you or not."
Sad to say, but this is a red flag and it is perhaps one of the biggest problems with "alternative medicine" mindset.
Here, the author makes the heinous error of suggesting that it's up to you, the patient, to determine if a treatment is working, or not. And how do you determine it? Why, this is based on if you feel there has been improvements.
It should be noted that cancer patients have died at the hands of homeopaths(alternative medicine) because they felt like they were getting better, when in fact, it was the opposite. "Common sense", whether on part of patient or therapist, is not always enough.
It bears repeating: "Feelings" are not always reliable when it comes to our physical health. Yes, a positive state of mind, placebo, or otherwise, can help things along, but it is ultimately scientifically-based medicine/treatments that saves lives.
“BTW, relocating fallacious arguments and/or poor reasoning doesn't "correct" those arguments or reasoning.”
It’s *not* about relocating fallacious arguments and you know it. Saying this, I’m happy with what you’re saying about it.
“The fact that they might all be called "therapy" doesn't mean that they are all plausible therapies.”
Let me guess, the only plausible therapies, are the ones having been proven scientifically. My goal was to make a distinction between therapists and those who are not. And whether you like it or not I *am* a therapist, even if it’s based on pseudo-science.
“However, their point is moot, considering that no amount of training makes an unproven field a legit' field.”
Jeff, this kind of therapy will never get your blessing. Please… The goal was to give an overview based on this sort of therapy. That’s why it’s called “Alternative Therapy” and not “Scientifically proven x Therapy”.
“At face value it seems reasonable enough. But dig a little deeper and we see that the "highest level of expertise" of, say, a reflexology therapist, doesn't mean diddly-squat if reflexology is pseudo-science...”
See above. What’s the goal of your arguments here? I cannot ever write anything decent about this when it comes to this subject combined with your standards and you know it .
“Whether or not a therapist would like to be able to tell his or her client why they think a given treatment is working beclouds the issue. If a therapist cannot explain to you in modern terms, terms that stem from modern medicine, why a treatment is working, this should raise an eyebrow. Moreover, if a therapist starts using metaphysical or New Age jargon, neither of which have any proven basis in reality, this should be cause for concern.”
Challenge is to leave the "woo" jargon for what it is, like I did in this bit. Is it possible? I doubt it.
Me: "Alternative therapy may not have been proven scientifically, but there is always something like common sense to judge yourself, whether it is helped you or not."
You: “Sad to say, but this is a red flag and it is perhaps one of the biggest problems with "alternative medicine" mindset.”
OK, so added to this could be to have things checked during the treatments. Since the person should be consulting a doctor anyway, this should automatically be done.
“Here, the author makes the heinous error of suggesting that it's up to you, the patient, to determine if a treatment is working, or not. And how do you determine it? Why, this is based on if you feel there has been improvements.”
See above.
“It should be noted that cancer patients have died at the hands of homeopaths(alternative medicine) because they felt like they were getting better, when in fact, it was the opposite. "Common sense", whether on part of patient or therapist, is not always enough.”
See above.
“It bears repeating: "Feelings" are not always reliable when it comes to our physical health. Yes, a positive state of mind, placebo, or otherwise, can help things along, but it is ultimately scientifically-based medicine/treatments that saves lives.”
Again: See above.
Is this going to be about how to burn one another (me) down? Oh sorry, one another’s field of expertise? I sincerely hope not. It is meant to show that I do look critically at this matter and with this I’m giving others the possibility to do the same thing. Something must have stuck from your blog when writing this bit, unless I am very mistaken here… (and yes I’m being defensive here, since I am very disappointed – yes emotional again -, although I could expect this reaction from you). What happened to finding common ground? ... sigh ...
You know, if you prefer I can always get back to the replies you gave me last night. However, walking on thin ice, this doesn't seem like the best idea to me.
@Jeff - I'm curious to know if i've gained your respect with my knowledge and expertise in the field of Unicorn Veterinary service? :P
"... a positive state of mind, placebo, or otherwise, can help things along ..."
As i've tried to illustrate to the listening/viewing audience - if those practitioners within these metaphysical fields would strictly maintain and assert that they can help form and maintain positive states of mind in CONJUNCTION with responsible, proven conventional science based medicine, they could enjoy noble levels of respect and appreciation for their efforts .... but nooOOOooo ... they have to go on telling folk how they're somehow better and more magically capable of "fixing" people in ways that cannot be proven.
Seems akin to those late night infomercials that boast if you take their pills of water, sawdust and leech lips, you'll magically wake up in the morning looking like Penelope Cruz or Ann Hathaway ... just 3 low payments of $19.95 and if you order now we'll double your order
>_<
Yup..all of that, except of course, I won't be needing the Unicorn services = P
@Bobbie,
Did you actually read? Fixin' people???
Did I actually "read"? welp ... I kind of skim your contributions anymore ... because, and i'll give you kudos for this, you are exceptionally talented at using a vast sum of verbiage in different configurations to say the same exact thing over and over and over ... which basically boils down to:
"We're good and decent people who are trying to help people but we have absolutely no documented proof, data, studies - in all the history of time and space - to back up and/or support that we can actually do anything beneficial for people PHYSICALLY, that resembles, equals or surpasses conventional medicine or science"
But at least you give people a "positive vibe" for their experience with y'all - and that's a good thing
But no need to get snippy with me for saying so in plain language
FYI - if you had even the slightest foundation from which to work from, you wouldn't need to be concerned with the nuances of my words because you'd be far too busy laying out the charts, graphs, data and studies that show the value of the things your profession's governing organizations claim they can
My mistake. I do occasionally fix people on my MASSAGE table. Getting to do my workout, whilst getting paid for it. Life is sweet.
@Bobbie:
Xcuse me. Did you just say nuances of your words?
Jeff was referring to another blog post I’d written. Evidently you didn’t read it.
Charts, graphs, data and studies… so not my thing to do… C’mon I already have trouble reading books, you expect me to do these kinds of things? If you want me bouncing up and down, then I really should do so. Besides… even if there were positive results, then I believe I would still hear something about one too many deaths… (and no I do not say that one too many isn’t one too many, ‘cause it is).
Really?!? you're gonna retype something and ask if i typed that thing as if you somehow did not "hear" what it typed?!? really?!?
Oh Brother!
I quite frankly don't care what "other blog" jeff is reading/referring ... I'm simply responding to what is written here ... since my comments and references are directly referring to everything said in this thread, i don't think anyone is gonna "fall for that banana in the tailpipe"
As for your reading abilities - not my problem or concern - sorry you have difficulties - but it seems if you're aware of your limitations, you wouldn't want to illuminate and expose those weaknesses ... much like a boxer will let a broken rib heal before fighting again ... but hey, if you want to fight with a broken rib, that's your choice but don't expect your opponents to hold back or pull their punches.
That said - seems like you're using that as an excuse to deflect yet again from the simple point that your profession on the whole does not and cannot back up it's claims with any evidence ... and I don't, quite frankly, care one bit if providing "evidence "is sooo not your thing" ... i hate to say it - but that just makes this whole farce of a discussion make you look like a complete buffoon ... the logic that you don't want to "jump up and down" to provide proof/evidence to support your position because there might ... MIGHT be some random details that can be questioned?!?
You're fighting and defending something that you cannot/will not provide supporting evidence ... but that's ok because it simply "isn't your thing" ... dafuq?!?
Lexji - i like you as a person (at least as a virtual person), i really do ... but in this context, i know stereotypical "dumb blonds" that seem like rocket scientists by comparison
you really need to step up your game ... or find one you're better at playing.
thanks for the headache >_<
“you're gonna retype something and ask if i typed that thing as if you somehow did not "hear" what it typed?!?”
Weren’t you the experts in cynical questions?
“…but it seems if you're aware of your limitations, you wouldn't want to illuminate and expose those weaknesses…”
It’s not like I have to watch out for you now, do I? What you’re saying would imply something sneaky and that’s not something I see any of the two of you doing.
“That said - seems like you're using that as an excuse to deflect yet again from the simple point that your profession on the whole does not and cannot back up it's claims with any evidence ...”
Well it wasn’t. And yes I’m afraid you’re right there won’t be many statistics, cause again how would this be measured and specifically by which standards? I mean if we say people feel better, than next question becomes why? If this were to be the placebo effect than what would be measuring? So would the numbers be about people just “feeling” better? Or better yet, if we were to send people to their doctor’s and we would notice improvement (statistically), then what would this be attributed to? Let’s take that example of my client with the replaced knee. It’s six weeks down the line and he can already walk again without any support and normally. He goes way faster than other people. Now is this because he’s been pushing himself? Is it because I’ve massaged him almost daily? Is it because I’ve taken away the pain and decreased the inflammation? Or is it a combo? And this is basically the problem with all these examples. There is hardly just one thing being done. So what can be seen as cause and what as result? @Jeff, sorry for the personal anecdote, but I really would not know how to explain this differently.
“... the logic that you don't want to "jump up and down"…”
I get hyper from having to sort out all kinds of stuff. No one wants me hyper, trust me.
“... MIGHT be some random details that can be questioned?!?”
And no I do not mind random details being questioned, providing I have something to present.
“you really need to step up your game ...”
Let’s find out what a good method might be. See above.
@Jeff. If you’re wondering about the chat like discussion going on, Bobbie didn’t want to exclude you from our discussion.
Let's begin here...
"If you’re wondering about the chat like discussion going on, Bobbie didn’t want to exclude you from our discussion."
No, actually, I'm not the least bit wondering about it. In fact, I'm glad that someone else is attempting to underscore all of the points that I've previously attempted to make - most of which are continually lost on you - because it takes some of the pressure off of me. Albeit, he's had about as much success finding common ground w/you as I have, which is pretty much zilch.
I said that you were walking on thin ice here, and while you noted (and remarked on) that, it still didn't stop you from yet another emotionally-charged attempt to get at least two people to, not only see your perspective, but apparently, to change their views of the entire "alternative medicine" community....
I can get so sick and tired of people always telling how this profession is one big fraud ~ Lady Lexje
....yes, you evidently feel that you and your "alternative medicine" constituents are being demonized because at least two people you've encountered online won't change their minds on the matter, when you've proffered not one flipping iota of objective evidence to support the metaphysical aspects of "this profession". None; zip; zero.
Notwithstanding, if you are intent to keep defending your errors on this blog, I'm content to keep pointing out those errors...oh, and not because I think you'll change your mind; you won't, but because this conversation illustrates to any onlookers what being convicted to a belief looks like.
Tomorrow I will talk in more detail about your repeat errors.
I’m afraid you’re right there won’t be many statistics, cause again how would this be measured and specifically by which standards?
Not my problem to come up with a standard - it's YOUR profession that makes outlandish claims so it's those claimant's responsibility to come up with a standard with which to measure their success ... biggest problem here is, to date, they haven't even TRIED ... however whatever methods or standards are used - it will be compared to the successes of known conventional medicine
I mean if we say people feel better, than next question becomes why?
For the MILLIONTH time - i don't think jeff or i have suggested that any of your methods can't or don't make people "feel" better ... again - the problem is there is a huge huge difference between "I feel better" and "I'm GETTING better"
The same as there is a difference between "I WANT to go to the beach" and "I am GOING/ON MY WAY to the beach"
If this were to be the placebo effect than what would be measuring?
I dunno - success rates that are an improvement over a coin flip average? ... again not my problem because i'm not making the assertion
So would the numbers be about people just “feeling” better? Or better yet, if we were to send people to their doctor’s and we would notice improvement (statistically), then what would this be attributed to?
My money would be on the conventional doctor having the biggest/most influence over the patient's recovery ... but i would not discount the added benefits of mental health and positive thinking in adding some small measure of positive influence to speed recovery time
NOTE: once again I'm giving your profession credit for being helpful and useful to the extent that it can be beneficial - i keep giving you a noble exit to get out of this conversation with your head held high and allowing you to feel proud and accomplished that you do good works ... but like every other time ... you will totally ignore this and dive in head first and try to pretend you can do something without proof and you'll again make an absolute fool of yourself)
Let’s take that example of my client ... is this because he’s been pushing himself?
Perhaps part of it - can't be discounted - but certainly not the sole solution otherwise there'd be no need for a medical field of any kind
Is it because I’ve massaged him almost daily?
Massage has it's benefits - certainly - but this is a physical interaction - it's SEPARATE AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from such claims as "distant healing" et. al.
Clearly something in your mind doesn't allow you to separate the two totally different actions/interactions. Let me see if I can illustrate:
Assume to be true:
I am a half a world away from you physically - I am violently angry and want to cut your throat with a knife - are you afraid?
Assume to be true:
I am one meter away you physically - I am violently angry and want to cut your throat with a knife - are you afraid?
See the difference yet?
Is it because I’ve taken away the pain and decreased the inflammation?
This statement is just outlandishly egotistical ... yeah "You" did that ... LMAO ... even a medical doctor who gives a patient a pill to stop an illness cannot make such a boast ... the PILL did took away the discomfort/disease
Or is it a combo? And this is basically the problem ... There is hardly just one thing being done. So what can be seen as cause and what as result?
Of course it's a combo ... this is why the assertions of your professions are quackery - they try to make themselves the driving force and main solution ... and yes - it's a problem - for your profession - because they have no results from experimentation to offer as proof to back up their claim.
Look - everyone wan'ts to feel good about what they do - and that's fine - but you have to be realistic about what you actually do
"My mistake. I do occasionally fix people on my MASSAGE table. Getting to do my workout, whilst getting paid for it. Life is sweet." ~ Lady Lexje
NO. Your "mistake" is when you disingenuously downplay your claims, as you just did, above.
Please let this penetrate: No one - not Bobby; not I; not anyone from the scientific community - would dispute, for nanosecond, that one physical being massaging/manipulating the muscles of another physical being doesn't produce positive, observable effects. The key words? These: observable and physical.
Now, I (rhetorically) ask, is "massage" a comprehensive description of the "therapies" that you offer? Is the extent of your "treatments" giving someone a frickin' "massage"? Um, NO, it isn't. You know damned-well that Bobby and I are skeptical of the metaphysical aspects of any therapies that claim to use them..e.g.."distant healing", "touch therapy", "magnet therapy", "balancing auras", and the like.(there's literally hundreds more)
But yet, you want to capitalize on and use as an example, something that's not even disputed. This is very telling, in and of itself. It's equivocation, and equivocation wastes time and makes you look dishonest.
"It’s *not* about relocating fallacious arguments and you know it."
Agreed. The underlying issue is not "about" relocating arguments. No, it's about you not acknowledging your errors in this discussion. Running off to your own blog and repeating the same errors you do here is simply a byproduct of your refusal to acknowledge said errors.
"Saying this, I’m happy with what you’re saying about it."
I don't recall saying anything that would advance your position. So, maybe you are happy for some other reason. My goodness. Who knows?(also rhetorical)
"Let me guess, the only plausible therapies, are the ones having been proven scientifically."
'Bad guess. Here's the right answer: The only proven therapies are the ones that have been proven, scientifically.
IOW, if "alternative medicine" was proven to work, it would just be called "medicine".
"My goal was to make a distinction between therapists and those who are not."
And once again, that "goal" is moot, and it is ultimately a red herring..i.e..it is a diversion(clever?) from the topic, which, for what seems like the bazillionth time, is those therapists, read->-> REGARDLESS of the extent of their "training"; REGARDLESS of how much "common sense" they have, who advocate UNPROVEN techniques/medicine/treatments on the ill, and in ***the worst of the worst scenarios, suggest that people with life-threatening illnesses can be cured using ONLY said unproven techniques/medicine/treatments.
***If you don't fit in with this group, then wonderful. However, that in no way gets you off the hook for endorsing/advocating any unproven technique/medicine/treatments, nor does it alleviate the burden of proof, your burden, if you expect people to believe you are a legit' therapist where the metaphysical aspects of your claims are concerned.
Let the record show that I accept that you are legit' massage therapist. I'm hoping that's good enough, but I suspect not. In fact, I know it's not....
"And whether you like it or not I *am* a therapist, even if it’s based on pseudo-science."
It's not about what I "like" or "don't like"; it's about what's demonstrably true. In any case, I think that last statement of yours says it all.
High 5 @Jeff - it's amazing who two people (you and I) who have had no other communication or interaction can come to the exact same conclusion when they use the facts and realities as presented.
Rock on Bro :)
You just took things out of context. This is the whole bit: "Did you actually read? Fixin' people???", later followed by: ""My mistake. I do occasionally fix people on my MASSAGE table. Getting to do my workout, whilst getting paid for it. Life is sweet."
It wasn't disingenuous or dishonest, it was downright cynical. Please take it for what it is.
"Let the record show that I accept that you are legit' massage therapist."
I wish I were. But no... than I have to do another 4 years of everything I'm already able to do and have studied, just to get that piece of paper. Grrr.... Besides I'd still be an alternative therapist, please note this.
You just took things out of context ... Please take it for what it is.
WOW ...
Me: Oh My gosh! the house is on FIRE ... the fire is raging out of control! Quick, lets get everyone to safety!
You: No can do - i have to do the dishes and polish the silver
Kid - you need help ... because we're WAAAY past such trivial issues of how you have difficulties properly implementing cynicism. Or whether i "got" your rudimentary and botched attempt at it.
I'm certainly willing to have a debate about literary mechanisms but it seems to be as completely and utterly out of place and irrelevant as washing dishes while the house is burning down.
Can we please stick to the subject? Or are you just going to concede you have no basis or foundation to support your metaphysical claims? (Again - "massage" has no place or bearing in this discussion since it's methods and benefits are not now and have not ever been in question)
I would say this conversation is going down hill in a hurry - but evidently some participants are on the wrong hill
>_<
"Can we please stick to the subject?" ~ R. Hall
Evidently not.
"Or are you just going to concede you have no basis or foundation to support your metaphysical claims?" ~ R. Hall
Either that, or one has the "foundation" you seek, but cannot(or will not) proffer it for one reason or another...e.g.."it's too difficult", "you won't accept it", you'll never be convinced", "how do you expect me to[yadda, yadda]".
Previously, me: "Let the record show that I accept that you are legit' massage therapist."
I wish I were. But no... than I have to do another 4 years of everything I'm already able to do and have studied, just to get that piece of paper." ~ L
Okay, I spoke too soon. You've got a ways to go.
"Besides I'd still be an alternative therapist, please note this." ~ L
Noted, but about as meaningful to me as someone who tells me that they live next to a "married bachelor", and about as useful to me as someone who tells that they can tell me how long I'll live by looking at the lines on the palm of my hand. This of course doesn't mean that the person who tells me this couldn't get lucky.
e.g.."it's too difficult", "you won't accept it", you'll never be convinced", "how do you expect me to[yadda, yadda]".
Good thing Galileo, Copernicus, da Vinci, Magellan, Columbus etc. didn't take those positions ... but of course they actually set out to build a case, did the experiments - documented and repeated the results to prove their hypotheses
Kind of brings us back to the original point of the Essay - it's important to care about the beliefs of others - they have the potential to impact our lives - both positively or negatively
"Kind of brings us back to the original point of the Essay - it's important to care about the beliefs of others - they have the potential to impact our lives - both positively or negatively"
Precisely.
"Kind of brings us back to the original point of the Essay - it's important to care about the beliefs of others - they have the potential to impact our lives - both positively or negatively"
Precisely.
Believe it or not, that's why I wrote this previous statement:
"Saying this, I’m happy with what you’re saying about it."
I don't recall saying anything that would advance your position. So, maybe you are happy for some other reason. My goodness. Who knows?(also rhetorical)
Believe it or not, that's why I wrote this previous statement
I don't believe it ... not one bit ... i think you just opportunistically took advantage and credit for someone else's work ... just like the quackery of "distant healing" or whatever tries to take credit for modern conventional medicine and science.
It stands to reason since y'all have years of practice deluding yourselves into believing you mind melded someone to health from a million miles a way - so why not take credit for someone else's thoughts and conclusions - it's not a very big leap at all :/
FYI - Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit sharp, short or abrasive ... but we've been doing this same dance around the same stuff over and over ... I've tried to be nice and understanding but that's got us exactly no where ... Lexji, you've remained bulletproof to logic, reason and facts - kudos to standing strong for what you believe in - but i've reached the end of trying to sugar coat the facts and massage reality to try and get you to accept and adopt anything remotely akin to reason.
So fair warning - it's on.
Bobbie: "I don't believe it ... not one bit ... i think you just opportunistically took advantage and credit for someone else's work."
Why? What are you talking about?
My previous statement was: "Saying this, I’m happy with what you’re saying about it." And Jeff had responded to this:" I don't recall saying anything that would advance your position. So, maybe you are happy for some other reason. My goodness. Who knows?"
The reason why I was, is that I do appreciate it when the truth is being told, even when I do not agree with it or do not like it. And I could appreciate the answers Jeff had given to this blog yesterday, even if it was very critical.
You Bobby: "So fair warning - it's on."
Do we need to be? My energy has come to a severe low at this moment. Can't even smile anymore.
Why would you write this: "Kind of brings us back to the original point of the Essay - it's important to care about the beliefs of others - they have the potential to impact our lives - both positively or negatively", with Jeff acknowledging this with: "Precisely." - and now say it's on?
I thought for a moment we were trying to get on the path "of understanding one another" again.
:-(
"I thought for a moment we were trying to get on the path 'of understanding one another' again."
This suggests that your position has been misunderstood to one extent or another, and it also suggests that you've been trying to under our position. I opine, a) that you've been too busy defending your position and authoring numerous posts on your own blog to try to understand our position, and b) that we(Bobby and I) have not misunderstood you. We understand you just fine; we simply disagree with you.
Factor in numerous attempts to create a diversion from the real issue and numerous emotional outbursts, and it should be no wonder why we're at our whit's end with this.
A lot has been written since last night and I haven’t been able to take a good look at up till now. So I’m just going to get in some answers here, since especially Bobbie hasn’t got the slightest impression I’ve read (and taken to heart) anything he’s said.
Jeff: “....yes, you evidently feel that you and your "alternative medicine" constituents are being demonized because at least two people you've encountered online”.
Well no. This is something which has been bugging me long before I even met the two of you.
Bobbie: “it's YOUR profession that makes outlandish claims so it's those claimant's responsibility to come up with a standard with which to measure their success ... biggest problem here is, to date, they haven't even TRIED ...”
I’m not too sure about it, but I’ve send a mail to a former teacher of mine who taught is Parapsychology, which investigates the Paranormal. Let’s see if he knows anything about numbers.
Bobbie: “For the MILLIONTH time - i don't think jeff or i have suggested that any of your methods can't or don't make people "feel" better ... again - the problem is there is a huge huge difference between "I feel better" and "I'm GETTING better"”
Noted.
Bobbie: “NOTE: once again I'm giving your profession credit for being helpful and useful to the extent that it can be beneficial - i keep giving you a noble exit to get out of this conversation with your head held high and allowing you to feel proud and accomplished that you do good works ...”
Highly appreciated. Thank you… Not sure how this exit out exactly works, apart from stating that I indeed cannot know what things can be attributed to.
Bobbie: “but like every other time ... you will totally ignore this and dive in head first and try to pretend you can do something without proof and you'll again make an absolute fool of yourself)”
As far as proof is concerned, I’ve been thinking of ways to get some info. So see above.
Bobbie: “Look - everyone wan'ts to feel good about what they do - and that's fine - but you have to be realistic about what you actually do”
Yes, I’m adjusting my views here…
Jeff: “Please let this penetrate: No one - not Bobby; not I; not anyone from the scientific community - would dispute, for nanosecond, that one physical being massaging/manipulating the muscles of another physical being doesn't produce positive, observable effects. The key words? These: observable and physical.”
OK. Noted. And yes I do see the difference.
Jeff: “You know damned-well that Bobby and I are skeptical of the metaphysical aspects of any therapies that claim to use them..e.g.."distant healing", "touch therapy", "magnet therapy", "balancing auras", and the like.(there's literally hundreds more).”
Yep, I do and as explained it was neither meant as a distraction, nor to downplay my claims.
Jeff: “***If you don't fit in with this group, then wonderful. However, that in no way gets you off the hook for endorsing/advocating any unproven technique/medicine/treatments”
You said so before and I still do not know what to think of this. You want me stop giving energetic treatments? You might want to explain this a little more, ‘cause obviously you are expecting something to (not) do (anymore) and from this side I’m clueless still, as I was when you said so before.
Jeff: “nor does it alleviate the burden of proof, your burden, if you expect people to believe you are a legit' therapist where the metaphysical aspects of your claims are concerned.”
Yes I understand this by now and like I said before to Bobbie I’m trying to see if there are any and if so, I’ll let you know.
Jeff: “Let the record show that I accept that you are legit' massage therapist. I'm hoping that's good enough, but I suspect not. In fact, I know it's not....”
:-)
Continued…
Bobbie:"Or are you just going to concede you have no basis or foundation to support your metaphysical claims?"
Jeff: “Either that, or one has the "foundation" you seek, but cannot(or will not) proffer it for one reason or another...e.g.."it's too difficult", "you won't accept it", you'll never be convinced", "how do you expect me to[yadda, yadda]".”
I’m aware it sounds defensive and lazy at best. So that’s why I’m exploring other options at the moment.
Bobbie: “Kind of brings us back to the original point of the Essay - it's important to care about the beliefs of others - they have the potential to impact our lives - both positively or negatively”
It seems like something I said before. Caring now seems equal to proving, even if it’s not me directly who has to do so.
Bobbie: "FYI - Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit sharp, short or abrasive ... but we've been doing this same dance around the same stuff over and over ... I've tried to be nice and understanding but that's got us exactly no where ... Lexji, you've remained bulletproof to logic, reason and facts - kudos to standing strong for what you believe in - but i've reached the end of trying to sugar coat the facts and massage reality to try and get you to accept and adopt anything remotely akin to reason."
Me: "I thought for a moment we were trying to get on the path 'of understanding one another' again."
Jeff: “This suggests that your position has been misunderstood to one extent or another, and it also suggests that you've been trying to under our position.”
Under your position as in undermine?
Jeff: “I opine, a) that you've been too busy defending your position and authoring numerous posts on your own blog to try to understand our position, and b) that we(Bobby and I) have not misunderstood you. We understand you just fine; we simply disagree with you.”
It turns out I understood just fine when it came to Bobbie. I asked him later on the chat about it why he said: “So fair warning - it's on.” and I got to understand this had to do with me giving hardly any feedback/responses to especially Bobbie. I explained this had to do with me reading all these messages on my iPhone and it’s a disaster to reply to the blog at that moment. So hence, little to no response.
Jeff: “Factor in numerous attempts to create a diversion from the real issue”
I’ll be more careful not to do so. It most certainly has not been my intent to do so.
Jeff: “… and numerous emotional outbursts, and it should be no wonder why we're at our whit's end with this.”
I’m aware it’s not good. It’s just so frustrating to feel cornered between:
* I make people feel good, however I cannot say I do anything beyond this, since it cannot be proven;
* I have to come up with some sort of proof, either provided by me or someone else;
* For some reason I’m responsible for the “dishonest” people out there and it really feels like I have to stop doing this line of work as a result (which I do not hope is what you meant).
RE: the latest on your blog...
"Next I’m being challenged to produce something that’s not up to me to give and which isn’t meant as a challenge at all." ~ Lady Lexje
I have no clue what you're saying, and I'm not convinced that you even know.
To play it safe, though, once more, I am not "challenging" you. It is YOU who views the fact that I require evidence before I consider accepting someone's claims - in this case, metaphysical claims - as credible. If you don't care if I believe you or not, then there is most certainly no "challenge". On the other hand, if you do care - and clearly you do - then yes, it most certainly IS up to you to proffer the evidence. But that isn't "a challenge"; it's merely what would change my mind if you could proffer it.
And please know that I'm not interested in any excuses why you can't proffer the evidence. You make the claim (or, you have in the past, anyway) that, using the "metaphysical"..translated, beyond physical, you can alter/influence the physical(your clients are physical beings).
Note, I'm not talking about altering or influencing their "state of mind" or "attitude"; I'm talking about physical ailments being treated using "energy" and/or "mind-power"(AKA, telepathy)
"And then there is still that question why I think that when someone has an opinion about someone else (as in I care => I worry because I fear that you might…) I consider this judging? I was planning on answering that question, but at the moment I really do not know."
I've gone leaps and bounds beyond what I would consider normal, trying to get you to understand why I care about people's beliefs. I have yet to see how anything in said explanation is one and the same as "judging" people---you, or anyone else. If this is something that I'm really missing and something that you feel will add to your anxiety if I don't see your point, *then feel free.
*Note, if you should attempt this, you should first recognize that when you talk about my "opinions", that opinions about beliefs are not necessarily opinions about the person holding the belief. If that doesn't make sense to you, then the offer above is off the table.
Lexji's interpretation of a typo/omission by Jeff: "Under" your position as in "undermine"?
I think it telling that you infer "Under__" to be "undermine" which in context barely makes sense, if at all ... considering the word "understand' or "misunderstood" were used several times in the same paragraph - it seems peculiar that you'd make an assumption totally out of context - i think this choice telegraphs your defensiveness and general wariness/distrust - hmmm
Lexji: "It turns out I understood just fine when it came to Bobbie. I asked him later on the chat about it why he said: “So fair warning - it's on.” and I got to understand this had to do with me giving hardly any feedback/responses to especially Bobbie ... "
Yeah ... umm ... i didn't think that's what i said at all ... i mean the lack of response was noticeable but had very little to do with anything as to why I said "it's on" ... yes it's a tad provocative ... but ... well - let me post the conversation regarding the issue so it's in the open and there's no misunderstanding and no one get the "interpretations" wrong ... because you really make me seem vain, petty and insecure with your statement ... (To Be continued)
So - the following is the Q&A that Lexji and I had on the messaging system of a popular social network site - And as i mentioned to Lexji the day before - i really did not want to engage in parallel private discussions about the debate topic outside of the debate arena - but evidently we did and for the exact reasons i tried to refrain from engaging I must now post it so my words and intent are clear:
Lexji: What did I do?
Lexji: Or fail to do?
Bobbie: it's not a "do or not do" thing ... i've been patient - but i'm beating my head against a wall - just like jeff has been ... not mad, not angry, not upset - just not gonna spoon feed you anymore
Bobbie: I've been trying to "translate" jeff's sharpness into softer terms for you - but it's not what you want or need - you want to be accepted for something neither jeff or i can accept - nothing wrong with that - just not acceptable so no reason to try and find the right terms for you to understand - you either ignore or reject it all anyway - and that's your right to do so
Lexji: Why now? Why after what I said and you saying I made it up/got it from someone else (which I still do not get, see blog).
Lexji: Why it's on? You got me all confused.
Bobbie: it's not the first time you've gone back and found something stated and said "that's why i said that" ... it feels disingenuous - like someone who stumbles and says "i meant to do that" ... no, you didn't ... it's a cop out - a cover ... "it's on" because i'm simply not going to let things slide and be as forgiving to mistakes in your presentations - you're a big girl - time to be treated like one ... simply put i'm going to interact in conversations like any other adversary i'm debating - again - it's not a "bad" thing ... just a fair thing ... i've been giving you a lot of latitude that i normally don't give people in debates ... but i feel you've been using that to your advantage so - no more advantages given - you'll need to debate your points in your own ways
Bobbie: However I am a bit miffed that you completely disregarded and ignored a whole bunch of stuff that both jeff and i said - i don't know anyone who is very keen on spending a lot of time and energy to say something and not have it at least be acknowledged
Bobbie: and yes - you have a habit of doing that
End - Part 1 - to be continued
Part 2 Continuation of previous conversation:
Lexji: I can't answer it all, that's too much and when being too emotional I rather stay away. Besides this bit was mentioned earlier today I responded to.
Lexji: Besides Jeff and I both go back to things said before.
Bobbie: your emotions are not my concern in the debates presented ... and what you and jeff "say" has no bearing on what has currently been presented ... again - that's a dodge ... preciecely what i'm tired of ...
Bobbie: and just because you may not be able to sift through what was said outside of the current discussion does not mean that i cannot ... that does not automatically make everything i contribute irrelevant and not worthy of review or comment
Lexji: Ah... that's what it's all about. Well honestly I've taken your things quite to heart (do I say that right?). I've been contacting others for stats for instance and you were right to this to be about finding common ground.
Lexji: Did you notice Jeff usually replies to what you are saying? This makes things irrelevant that same second.
Bobbie: "this" is about a discussion ... one where you arbitrarily pick and choose what you'll process and what you'll ignore ... yes, it seems you weight jeffs contributions more than mine - i couldn't care less ... i'm not that petty ... but i'm also not going to continue being the middle man either - you can present your case without any assistance from me
Bobbie: and yes - perhaps jeff replies to things i say - because perhaps i actually read, process and accurately respond based on the infomation he provides ... doesn't matter who has what viewpoint - people like to be acknowledged for their efforts
Lexji: Ok. Sorry. I thought over here was enough and besides I frequently reply to yours as well. They are of great value.
Bobbie: "over here" is not where the discussion is
Lexji: OK. Can't go there now. Sorry.
Bobbie: nothing to be sorry about - where you go when is none of my concern
Lexji: Apparently it does. Do you know how much time and effort it takes to post anything on that blog when working from a phone? I hardly have been home all day.
Lexji: FB is so much easier to respond to.
Lexji: All the time earlier today I was at my mum's answering both Jeff AND YOU!!!
Bobbie: well you're free to interpret things however you choose ... even if it has been stated to be incorrect - - of maybe your game is to see how many times you can get me or jeff to repeat ourselves - because i've already stated - it don't matter how "easy" it is to respond anywhere but in the location of the discussion - that is NOT where the discussion is at (repeated again) ... and and i'm sorry for your difficulties responding tto both jeff and i to defend your position ... if you believe in your position, it shouldn't be such a "chore"
Lexji: We'll talk later. And try borrowing a phone and having it take 5 =10 times to type just a few rules, having to go back and forth on those tiny buttons.
Lexji: HAving to start all over again and again.
Lexji: That's when I'm short with names, bold, italics etc.
Lexji: You know how frustrating it is to go over 100 posts because I pushed just below the wished button?
Lexji: And then having to start ALL over again?
Bobbie: that's my problem how?
Bobbie: failure to plan on your part doesn't not in any way constitute and emergency on my part
(End Conversation)
Me: "Under" your position as in "undermine"?
Bobbie: “I think it telling that you infer "Under__" to be "undermine" which in context barely makes sense, if at all ... considering the word "understand' or "misunderstood" were used several times in the same paragraph - it seems peculiar that you'd make an assumption totally out of context - i think this choice telegraphs your defensiveness and general wariness/distrust – hmmm”
It’s fairly simple. I don’t have a clue what’s meant by it. I tried to see if I could find any meaning on the net, but alas. If you want to read more into it, I can’t stop you.
Bobbie: “Yeah ... umm ... i didn't think that's what i said at all ... i mean the lack of response was noticeable but had very little to do with anything as to why I said "it's on" ...”
Bobbie, I asked about this on the blog. Before you gave that answer I found you on FB and clearly you were not happy with me answering on FB to you and not on the blog. If that’s not why, then clearly something has gone wrong in our chat.
And BTW I’m not sure I’d like private conversations on this public blog though. Not so much because I’ve got anything to hide, but there is a reason these things are “private”. One of these is I answered you while doing my Insanity Workout, because I had to leave straight after. So in the few moments there was a break I quickly took some time to answer you. Remind me that next time I’ll wait for your response on the blog…
"I think it telling that you infer 'Under__' to be 'undermine' which in context barely makes sense, if at all ... considering the word 'understand' or 'misunderstood' were used several times in the same paragraph."
Typo > "understand"
Before you gave that answer I found you(Bobby) on FB[...]"
Why?
[...]and clearly you were not happy with me answering on FB to you and not on the blog"
Why is the conversation being taken off the blog and onto a networking site???
Why is the conversation being taken off the blog and onto a networking site???
It shouldn't be - and precisely why i brought it back where it belongs
For continuity - there was no personal/private information discussed - the conversation posted in not redacted or edited in any way - evidently it was simply more "convenient" to use a different medium - which i've warned in the past was not a good idea since things get said or inferred out of context and all participants aren't privy to all information and ideas shared in regard to the topics and conversations in/on this blog
Me: "I thought for a moment we were trying to get on the path 'of understanding one another' again."
Jeff: “This suggests that your position has been misunderstood to one extent or another, and it also suggests that you've been trying to understand our position. I opine, a) that you've been too busy defending your position and authoring numerous posts on your own blog to try to understand our position…”
Actually I do try to understand your position. And to a certain extent I can. For instance you saying that it’s unproven and that no amount of personal anecdotes can change this, is absolutely understandable. Bobbie suggesting that I should get stats, is also something I understand. What I do not understand, but I’ve said so in the previous post, is why you see me as the one advocating what’s happening within my field of expertise and what you want/expect me to do.
My blog is used for 2 reasons:
1) To vent my frustrations. I try to keep my emotional outbursts to a minimum (which obviously and unfortunately hasn’t worked quite well lately), by going there first.
2) To make sense of my own thoughts. Like for instance this bit:
Me: "Next I’m being challenged to produce something that’s not up to me to give and which isn’t meant as a challenge at all."
You: “I have no clue what you're saying, and I'm not convinced that you even know”.
To be ahead of any potential answers, I did understand what I said, but I didn’t know how to deal with it. What I was trying to say is that you told me you haven’t challenged me, while I still “feel” it to be one. Please note that every time you ask for “scientifically proven evidence” (which I understand perfectly), I’m thinking, “Yes I’d like to, but how? This to me seems like some sort of “project” and either I can see it as an obstacle/problem, or I can view it as a challenge. Not so much because you have said so (you haven’t), but because of the impact the request for this evidence has.
Next you tell me that you do not expect me to provide this evidence. Again the question is, how do I get this “scientifically proven evidence” from others? Is there any? If so, where? If not, can I get others to participate in a setting that hasn’t even been thought of, much less set up.
Bobbie next suggests me to look into any potential stats. So I’ve now been thinking about who to approach and been doing so.
If I’m going into this part of your previous answer, I might as well get into the rest of that same part.
“To play it safe, though, once more, I am not "challenging" you. It is YOU who views the fact that I require evidence before I consider accepting someone's claims - in this case, metaphysical claims - as credible.”
See above.
“If you don't care if I believe you or not, then there is most certainly no "challenge". On the other hand, if you do care - and clearly you do - then yes, it most certainly IS up to you to proffer the evidence. But that isn't "a challenge".”
I do care if you believe me, that’s most certainly true. Why it’s a challenge for me, I’ve just explained.
“it's merely what would change my mind if you could proffer it.”
I see that to you it’s not like you’re providing me with a challenge. I do hope you can understand that while you do not view it as such, I do. It’s not about the element of competition, it has to do with the degree of effort going into this.
Continued…
“And please know that I'm not interested in any excuses why you can't proffer the evidence.”
I understand this as well. That’s why my mind is going overtime. When either of you next says (I believe it’s mostly Bobbie) that I can still retreat graciously (not to be taken literally, it’s from memory this time), by just “diminishing” (that’s what it basically comes down to) what I’ve said previously, I might even be inclined to do so. When I feel too much pressure (you know by now my mind can be like a pressure cooker with the lit tending to fly off every now and then), I either go into defence, kicking and screaming (which is not good, I admit), I flee to my own blog, trying to calm myself down by making sense of things, or I give in (which is the easiest thing to do, but highly inappropriate and sure not “elegant” at all). Please note I would be willing to give you this evidence and I’m not sure this is impossible at all, but I would like some support on this and some thinking along on how to achieve this. And sure you can say “the burden to proof is on me” and it is, but if you care whether I come up with evidence or not (I actually do not know, but I would say you do), just maybe you can “sit me down” and get me to think in possibilities in stead of getting all emotional. I told you before, you do have a calming effect on me, that is when you’re not lashing out at me (or something alike). And I do believe I would be able to come up with something you see as valuable. And better yet, if we (say you would think along) would have a reliable setting and it would not work repeatedly, I could then say (with a sigh of relief and gracefully too) I’ve tried, it didn’t work and therefore you are right. And then I would take back all of my claims.
“You make the claim (or, you have in the past, anyway) that, using the "metaphysical"..translated, beyond physical, you can alter/influence the physical(your clients are physical beings)”.
Well actually I still do, I just don’t have the heart to post it here anymore, since I know how you can get all angry with me if I do. I had the perfect example at hand recently, with no interference of medication or whatsoever, but unfortunately that’s not in a scientifically proven setting and it is a personal anecdote, so I can’t use it.
“Note, I'm not talking about altering or influencing their "state of mind" or "attitude"; I'm talking about physical ailments being treated using "energy" and/or "mind-power"(AKA, telepathy).”
So am I.
Jeff: “Typo > "understand".
Thanx Jeff. I have to say here it helps how these things are answered. Just saying it as simple as this (no emotions whatsoever), helps me to remain (or get) calm (again). Whereas when is being asked how the **** I can come up with things like these, my emotions immediately kick in. So to Bobbie, I’d like to ask if you please can consider this, since Jeff has expressed numerous times he doesn’t like me to have these emotional outbursts (and personally neither do I). And of course it’s my own responsibility, but it would help matters so much more…
Me: “Before you gave that answer I found you(Bobby) on FB[...]"
Jeff: “Why?”
The blog is not as interactive as FB is. When being impatient (read emotions going all over the place), I like to get an answer as soon as possible. And Bobbie almost always is to be found on FB.
Continued some more…
Me: “[...]and clearly you were not happy with me answering on FB to you and not on the blog"
Jeff: “Why is the conversation being taken off the blog and onto a networking site???”
Bobbie: “It shouldn't be - and precisely why i brought it back where it belongs…evidently it was simply more "convenient" to use a different medium”.
It’s like I posted on FB. Whenever I’m away from home, all I have to work with is my phone. Excellent when it comes to FB, what is totally equipped for this, lousy when it comes to blogs. I do not know if you ever tried, but it’s quite a challenge to answer from a very small screen and not being able to type on behind or in the middle of somewhere in the text. Add to this the chance that all that was typed gets erased by pressing the wrong button and you get it’s very frustrating to say the least. However yesterday I was away almost all day (except for when I wrote my blog posts) and I did want to give some answers. I then do use the phone. But when Bobbie started saying: “It’s on”, there were a number of alarm bells triggered. So I first responded on the blog and then when there was no answer I used FB. Being all busy at that moment, I wasn’t able to go to your blog to answer things here. So it’s not about trying to keep you from any information, it has more to do with convenience and my own impatience when emotions are being triggered.
I might as well answer this part while I’m at it…
Jeff: “I've gone leaps and bounds beyond what I would consider normal, trying to get you to understand why I care about people's beliefs.”
So I’ve noticed and know it's appreciated. And I get it now why you do.
“I have yet to see how anything in said explanation is one and the same as "judging" people---you, or anyone else. If this is something that I'm really missing and something that you feel will add to your anxiety if I don't see your point, *then feel free.”
I will, just not now. I’m trying to get it across so it makes sense and I can’t seem to get it into words, so I’ll take my time for this one.
“*Note, if you should attempt this, you should first recognize that when you talk about my "opinions", that opinions about beliefs are not necessarily opinions about the person holding the belief. If that doesn't make sense to you, then the offer above is off the table.”
It’s understood just fine. Again give me time to contemplate about this.
Me(blog owner):
Why is the conversation being taken off the blog and onto a networking site???
"It shouldn't be - and precisely why i brought it back where it belongs" ~ R. Hall
Cool, thx. And you're right, there's no reason the conversation(s) here need to leave here. While true, I list this blog on my profile under "websites", a) my privacy settings are set in such a way that only my friends can see it, and b) while this blog might be listed there, people finding it on their own is much different that having it advertized and the topics sensationalized. I have a sneaky suspicion that when I address the latest, I will need to cover this in more detail, if you get my drift.
Here - allow me to repeat what i feel is probably the most comprehensive and complete statement that responds to all your chaos:
Bobbie: failure to plan on your part doesn't not in any way constitute and emergency on my part
Let me explain why this is so important - there is no response SO important that you should compromise your thoughts. The reason this forum exists in the format that it does is precisely to give you pause to be thorough and thoughtful and to NOT respond with a knee jerk emotional reaction - this format gives you time and clarity to review and collect your thoughts to respond in your best way possible.
I'm sorry you take all this personal and get emotional regarding the topics here. This forum is not meant to attack people but it is also not a "chat" forum - I have indulged you outside this forum specifically to assist with what i perceived as a language barrier ... not to subvert the conversations and topics ... i don't "know" you and will likely never "know" you outside of this arena
Like any human - i have compassion for your feelings and emotions - but quite frankly, you create a lot of the issues in this forum yourself - this isn't really an issue for us to address in this forum - it's really for you to resolve in your own way ... same goes for your technological limitations - they really aren't germane to the topics of conversation and way too much time, effort and space has been spent on many threads dealing with how YOU feel and how YOU have difficulties interacting with the format/forum
I feel somewhat "taken advantage" of my patient and good nature and feel i have become your "crutch" to be used to make your arguments for you and to console you when you cannot find the answers to the questions posted here - in other words:
I'm not going to do the work for you ... THIS is what I mean by - "It's ON" (which is a common american term to say that "things will get competitive" and "i'm going to play to win" - it's often delivered tong in cheek in a good natured manner - which is how i intended it - again another language/cultural roadblock that just isn't my concern or responsibility to figure out)
So while there are aspects of the academic conversation that frustrate and confound me - i am not "mad" or "angry" or "hurt" or whatever else you might thing regarding my "feelings" ... I'm am simply here to share thought and ideas and debate the fundamental perceptions of the universe and how it works ... I'm not here to become an emotional train wreck and/or make friends/enemies
@Lexji - I found this video about why theists get so viscerally emotional towards atheists ... have a look - but instead of "God", substitute "metaphysical" or "pseudoscience"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
Hopefully you'll see how you can separate "you" from "it" and not allow criticism of "it" to become an "attack" on "you"
Enjoy :)
"What I do not understand, but I’ve said so in the previous post, is why you see me as the one advocating what’s happening within my field of expertise and what you want/expect me to do." ~ Lady Lexje
This is another prime example of you generalizing. Remember the "common sense" that you advocate? Well, why don't you start f%cking using it? You cannot be so obtuse as to think that either Bobby or myself think that you "advocate" wrongful death at the hands of "alternative medicine" proponents, can you? Or, wait...maybe you can?
I'd like to think not, so I'm going to conclude that you are equivocating, which means that you are being deliberately vague to becloud the issue.
Let me attempt yet one more time to get you to understand where/when we object:
If YOU practice anything "alternative" - which, for simplicity, means UNPROVEN(and this would include "metaphysical" treatments such as "distant healing", "touch therapy, "balancing energy", yadda, yadda) - then you are, at best, ***giving way to the a$$hole, crackpot, quack-therapists, and these are the people who do cause wrongful death to the desperate people out there who just want to get well. (And I am *NOT* talking about an "inflamed knee"; I am talking about serious, life-threatening disease)
***When I say "giving way", I do NOT mean "advocate" or "condone". No. I mean, these jerks see YOU using unproven treatments/methods as legit', so in turn, they then use the same treatments/methods to bilk desperate people for their money.
IOW, you indirectly give these jerks the power/wherewithal to do what they do, which many times - or if you prefer, TOO many times - kills people.
Note: I will not go over this with you again....EVER. So, if you come back here and act all "puzzled" and frustrated, I will click the little garbage can under your post and eliminate your post. I am not being combative for combativeness sake; I am doing what most normal people would when they encounter people who either don't listen, or won't listen.
"What I was trying to say is that you told me you haven’t challenged me, while I still 'feel' it to be one."
Underscoring what I said from the onset, and that is that our feelings are not reliable and can mislead us. In any case, I always go back to this: YOU....came and found me. If you cannot help but view it as a "challenge", idk...I guess that's your problem to work out on your own time and your own blog.
This to me seems like some sort of “project” and either I can see it as an obstacle/problem, or I can view it as a challenge.
Lets get back on track a bit and see if we can calm your frazzled nerves a bit, shall we?
When Jeff or i ask for evidence ... what we know is ... there ISN'T any evidence to support the claims of the metaphysical/pseudoscience. As much as that troubles you - it's just not a personal thing - neither jeff nor i think any less of you for not being able to provide the evidence/proof that we already know does not exist.
If there was any evidence that was proven through the widely accepted Scientific Method - the governing bodies of these fields would be shouting them from the rooftops and waving the results in everyone's face they could - in short - it would be as common knowledge as the Periodic Table of Elements.
So - Unless you're going to design, fund and execute a program that attempts to prove how these fields "work" - it's a challenge you cannot hope to accomplish ... no more than theists can "prove" the existence of deities/god.
This is reality - the reality we live in - you are free to carry on practicing and believing in the methodologies that rely on these alternative methods and you can happily go on convincing people who are satisfied with accepting anecdotal "proof" ... and it MAY actually work and help people ... but that's an internal debate for you to have with your conscience as to what's true and what works how and/or why
but it should NOT be this big dramatic emotional thing ... it simply is what it is.
contin....
"Please note that every time you ask for 'scientifically proven evidence' (which I understand perfectly), I’m thinking, 'Yes I’d like to, but how?" ~ Lady Lexje
I gave you one of the easiest tests possible, and you failed it. Remember?
Do you want more easy tests? Here's two: 1) a blood relative of mine is ailing. Name their relationship to me and the medical term for their disease. 2) I just sketched an animal on the back of a business card and jotted down a number between 1 -100 next to it, then slipped it underneath the base of a lamp on my desk. Report back here with accurate answers to either 1 OR 2, and I will have to consider changing my mind.
NO EXCUSES, please, as to why you "can't" (or won't) do it.
"Next you tell me that you do not expect me to provide this evidence."
Yes, that's correct. And? I don't expect such evidence from you because the "metaphysical" is a steaming pile of horseshit. 'Sorry to be blunt, but you practically beg for it.
Notwithstanding, you can prove me wrong. See "test", above.
"Again the question is, how do I get this 'scientifically proven evidence' from others? Is there any?"
No, you don't get it "from others". But the outrageous claims associated with the "metaphysical" haven't been proven by "others" to date, so that should tell you something(but sadly, it doesn't)
"I had the perfect example at hand recently, with no interference of medication or whatsoever, but unfortunately that’s not in a scientifically proven setting and it is a personal anecdote, so I can’t use it."
Correct. If I accept your "perfect example", then I have to accept when a Bigfoot tracker claims to have sighted a large-footed, community gorilla in his backyard as a "perfect example" of evidence for Bigfoot.
"The blog is not as interactive as FB is."
Uh-huh. Right. If I wanted more interactivity, I'd have not left FB as forum for discussions like these and created this blog.
"When being impatient (read emotions going all over the place), I like to get an answer as soon as possible. And Bobbie almost always is to be found on FB"
That you're "impatient", or "hyper", or any of that, isn't my or Bobby's problem. As it stands, your actions..i.e..tracking another poster down on FB, is exhibiting the behavior of a stalker, which, BTW, is why you're now blocked on FB.
Heads up: Any comments or answers on the above test should be in a separate post, because if you comment along side other topics..e.g..if you make a bunch of excuses as to why you can't oblige me on the said test, then you will risk the entire post being deleted.
That you're "impatient", or "hyper", or any of that, isn't my or Bobby's problem. Jeff in re: Lexji
Correct - it is not ... and it has no point or purpose being posted in this forum except to give you an excuse as to why it's "sooo difficult" to navigate this format because it's all clogged up with dozens of comments that either "explain" your emotional distress or comments from jeff and i repeating over and over how your emotional distress is useless and out of context as an argument/debate point to prove or further your positions.
@Lexji - I found this video about why theists get so viscerally emotional towards atheists ... have a look - but instead of "God", substitute "metaphysical" or "pseudoscience"
Enlightening and confrontational. Stats of researches are also kinda depressing. If it is what it is, I'll soon enough find out.
RE: video recommendation, all well-said.
If it is what it is, I'll soon enough find out.
Funny thing about the saying "It is what it is" ... it will still be what it is whether you find out or not.
Just like facts don't stop being facts just because you choose not to believe them or just outright ignore them.
You can hate, ignore, reject or not believe in gravity ... but you WILL fall on your face ... that's fact - it is what it is :P
Taken from the blog(online diary) of "Lady Lexje":
"I’ve come up with something useful, which will take a lot of time, but will eventually give me the answers I so desperately need."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
So, you've come up with something "useful" in letting you, yourself, know whether or not you should "take a huge step back and reconsider lots and lots of things", have you?
IOW, you've devised your own "test", one that you feel confident that you can pass, while making flimsy(but totally expected) excuses for why you cannot oblige another party's test.....
Please note that while talking about what my strengths and weaknesses are, I’m being asked to do exactly that one thing I’m not good at, while [ ] knows why I’m claiming to be good at." ~ Lady Lexje
How convenient. Despite your past claim that disembodied person "X" bothered you..e.g.."He won't leave me alone"; despite that you communicated with his "energy" just fine and could know things from beyond the grave using "energy" and related metaphysical practices, this is all of the sudden your "weakness". Again, how convenient.
And BTW, I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "while TS knows why I’m claiming to be good at."
Then there's this:
Why did I include this bit? Because it constantly seems contradictive to what’s next suggested. Then again, let’s keep in mind, this is directed towards my profession and then specifically when it comes to the metaphysical." ~ Lady Lexje
If you're asking the reader(IOW, me) to keep in mind that I'm directing my disdain towards your profession, and specifically, towards those who make metaphysical claims, etc., then just exactly where am I being "contradictive"(contradictory)??
Please either square-up your claim that being critical of beliefs is one and the same as "judging", or kindly refrain from quoting me on the subject. Thx.
Lastly, all-in-all, your latest post is a discombobulated mess, IMO. While you preface said post with an admission that you've posted things "out of context", you mix up quotes between two different people, giving zero indication as to who said what. Further, you use italics with no consistency, whatsoever. And yes, I know that you didn't ask for my opinion, but that's what I do here on my own blog...i.e..I give my opinion on things.
“Taken from the blog(online diary) of "Lady Lexje"”
There’s the blog and there’s the online diary. This was on the blog.
Me: "I’ve come up with something useful, which will take a lot of time, but will eventually give me the answers I so desperately need."
You: “I don't know whether to laugh or cry.”
See my blog post. I didn’t want to share it just yet, since it involves quite a lot and I do not know if I can make it happen. So I’m going to post it password protected, please use your username from your own blog (case sensitive) to take a look at it.
Me: “Please note that while talking about what my strengths and weaknesses are, I’m being asked to do exactly that one thing I’m not good at, while [ ] knows why I’m claiming to be good at."
I meant, while you know what I’m claiming to be good at. And this is not mediumship.
You: “How convenient. Despite your past claim that disembodied person "X" bothered you..e.g.."He won't leave me alone"; despite that you communicated with his "energy" just fine and could know things from beyond the grave using "energy" and related metaphysical practices, this is all of the sudden your "weakness". Again, how convenient.”
You, Jeff, ask for very specific things. First you want me to make a contact with you (that’s the easy part), next I have to tune into this sick relative of yours. This can only be done if you are thinking of that same relative, in order to make a connection from you to her (or whoever it is). Next I can tune it to this person and see if I can pick up symptoms or more specific details.
Note this is like a giant puzzle. I just have been asked to help a little child get to sleep. No info upfront. You know what, I’ll post this on my diary. Sorry for starting a personal anecdote.
And as far as X is concerned, this is quite a different story/experience. Let me know if you would like to know, I do not want to elicit any further rebuke, I’m like to get anyway.
“And BTW, I haven't a clue what you mean when you say, "while TS knows why I’m claiming to be good at."
Again, I meant while you know what I am claiming to be good at as opposed of what you asked me to do.
“If you're asking the reader(IOW, me)…”
I do have other readers believe it or not.
“…to keep in mind that I'm directing my disdain towards your profession, and specifically, towards those who make metaphysical claims, etc., then just exactly where am I being "contradictive"(contradictory)??”
Well you weren’t. The combo of you and Bobby were. You say stop doing this work, since I’m giving way to the charlatans. Bobby says I can go on, as long as I do not claim anything beyond feeling good.
“Please either square-up your claim that being critical of beliefs is one and the same as "judging", or kindly refrain from quoting me on the subject. Thx.”
Did I say so again in this post? I’d have to check. I still haven’t written about it what I wanted to say.
“Lastly, all-in-all, your latest post is a discombobulated mess, IMO.”
I know. And it felt good to do so, I might add.
“While you preface said post with an admission that you've posted things "out of context", you mix up quotes between two different people, giving zero indication as to who said what. Further, you use italics with no consistency, whatsoever.”
Nope. Not true. Whenever I’m saying my thoughts out loud, it’s italics (except for the intro and conclusion) and the text is aligned on the left side. Whenever quoting either you or Bobby, it’s normal text (I believe except for me). And since it’s not on your blog, I do not have to apply your rules. And since you refer quite frequently to me posting things on my own blog whenever I want to (you choose)… well why use YOUR rules on MY blog???
"And yes, I know that you didn't ask for my opinion, but that's what I do here on my own blog...i.e..I give my opinion on things.”
If it really bothers you I can change it, posting your names before each statement. If you were to try, the link with the password does not work :-(. Can I email?
In no particular order....
- no, not "my rules", but good writing ediquette and your responsibility as good blogger to give proper credit when you reproduce a published work. Notwithstanding, if you don't change it, no big deal, as you've got bigger problems, in my view.
- I don't recall you explicitly stating which metaphysical feats are your "strengths" and which are your "weaknesses", but again, I don't really care, as I see it as an excuse, in light of the descriptions of things you've claimed in the past.
- re: excuses, your latest, that you need to "make a contact" w/me first, which you describe as "easy enough", and you need to do this before you are able to "contact" my relative, is very, very interesting(in an unconvincing sort of way), and it is a bit amusing because you say that I asked you to "contact" me.
- I do not want to deal with "passwords". You can go ahead and plan and implement this idea of yours, and then we can talk when/if you get results that you think should change my mind.
- if writing your thoughts down is "therapy" and makes you "feel good", etc., and yet, you care not one iota if those thoughts come across as a complete mess to your readers, then you could feasibly get the same results writing in Notepad or something similar.
- no, I prefer that you not email me.
“- no, not "my rules", but good writing ediquette and your responsibility as good blogger to give proper credit when you reproduce a published work. Notwithstanding, if you don't change it, no big deal, as you've got bigger problems, in my view.”
I’ve changed the whole lot, adding your and Bobbie’s names. If it’s still not okay, let me know.
“re: excuses, your latest, that you need to "make a contact" w/me first, which you describe as "easy enough", and you need to do this before you are able to "contact" my relative, is very, very interesting(in an unconvincing sort of way)…”
Just telling you how I experience it. I can’t recall us ever discussing this, so you cannot know how this could work for me. You seem to think that if someone can do, this person can at the same “easily” do it.
“…and it is a bit amusing because you say that I asked you to "contact" me.”
Well not meant literally.
“You can go ahead and plan and implement this idea of yours, and then we can talk when/if you get results that you think should change my mind.”
It’s going to take some time, but when and if it will take off, I’ll probably post something about in on my blog. I wrote something down, I wanted to share with you, but it’s too premature to post it for others. Actually I’m very excited about it, since it includes a student doing “human movement science” who’s going to describe all of it, document it etc. and if I can get it to work, the test results will be provided by a physical therapist. But like I said it’s going to be a lot of work, ‘cause this will involve numerous clients over a longer period of time, all dealing with the same operation and I first have to get one of these physical therapists (working with patients in a hospital) willing to work with me. So Monday talks about this will be continued… Personally this seems more in line with what I do and it’s more scientifically proven than any reading could ever be.
First you want me to make a contact with you (that’s the easy part), next I have to tune into this sick relative of yours. This can only be done if you are thinking of that same relative, in order to make a connection from you to her (or whoever it is). Next I can tune it to this person and see if I can pick up symptoms or more specific details.
Derp ... hey ... like ... if you could make a flow chart or a procedure sheet that illustrates this "process ... that'd be greeaaaat ... Thanks :P
How about: Start => *Jeff => Relative ailing** => relationship?* => Yes => Illness?** => Yes => End
* => No => back to Jeff
** => No => back to (established) relative
Good enough? This process has one big risk though, looping!
Re: flow chart ... so ... everything starts with jeff? and since you know this, all the rest should fall into place no? but you have no answers filled in ... hmmm
That said - i was specifically thinking of a process outline that works for all situations and/or scenarios ... example:
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/f/flowchar.gif
@Bobbie:
"Re: flow chart ... so ... everything starts with jeff?"
It was Jeff's question to begin with.
"... and since you know this, all the rest should fall into place no? but you have no answers filled in ... hmmm"
The flowcharts does not contain answers. Otherwise it could not be used again anymore... (this is I believe to be the smoke and mirrors tactic.)
"That said - i was specifically thinking of a process outline that works for all situations and/or scenarios..."
Must be doable.
"http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/f/flowchar.gif"
Did you notice there are no arrows leading somewhere when searching for errors in that picture? Also very telling...
@Jeff: I get why it's easier to put the references back in... Sometimes it takes an example (as in being shown) to show the obvious...
Lexji: The flowcharts does not contain answers.
Lexji: Did you notice there are no arrows leading somewhere when searching for errors in that picture? Also very telling...
Welp - you're wrong - the flow chart example i provided answers the question of how to check to see if a computer is on and if it is not - what to check for ... very specific ... The process of "checking for errors is a completely different process that cannot be started without first determining why the computer is not on ... to be fair my flow chart does clearly identify itself as a
BASIC computer flowchart EXAMPLE
We can infer that since it is a basic example it just might not be comprehensive or complete ... that said, your flowchart seems to work more like a police investigation with complete reliance of investigating and interrogating the living folks referenced ... no methodology in how the metaphysical comes into play
Any amateur detective could answer jeffs questions following your flow chart with the right questioning and influence and observation that requires nothing supernatural or psychic in any way
"The process of "checking for errors is a completely different process that cannot be started without first determining why the computer is not on ... to be fair my flow chart does clearly identify itself as a BASIC computer flowchart EXAMPLE."
If you see “Search for errors” as the final solution, then I’d say OK. As a computer owner, I would like to have it fixed and then working. But like you say it’s a basic example.
“Any amateur detective could answer jeffs questions following your flow chart with the right questioning and influence and observation that requires nothing supernatural or psychic in any way”
You asked for a flowchart. I gave it to you. It was based on what I’d previously described and yes, there’s nothing supernatural about this. It’s like with the BASIC flowchart EXAMPLE. I did not get into the processes in between (behind the arrows).
Ok then ... we've now determined two other things you are deficient in ... reading comprehension and how flow charts work
>.<
I will say this about my flow chart example - it show the step by step process of how to determine if/when a computer is "on" ... nothing more ... after it has been determined to be "on" then a new flow process must be made to solve errors ... your flow chart skips huge swaths of steps and processes
Lexji: I did not get into the processes in between (behind the arrows).
Epic fail
but thanks for playing
“Ok then ... we've now determined two other things you are deficient in ... reading comprehension and how flow charts work…”
Trust me, if I’m good at something it’s creating flowcharts. I simply stuck to a very basic system, telling you I missed a number of arrows and I only used the most important parts. Maybe your expectations were a little different. I can off course start flowcharter or visio, but where would I put that picture?
“…but thanks for playing”
Thanx for inviting me Bobbie!
I disagree with your flow charting capabilities.
Start => *Jeff => Relative ailing
there is this "=>" process that magically makes a link from "Jeff" to "Relative Ailing"
this one arrow needs to be defined as a process on how you "get" to this relative ... any decent flow charter would know this ... so I stick to my conclusion that you are not very good at flow charting.
Sorry if that criticism hurts ... but we're dealing with facts here ... not guessing games and leaps of faith ... that "arrow" is precisely the aspect of the metaphysical that needs to be defined and proven ... but once again you "simplify" things by hiding the unprovable aspects
Do not pas "GO" do not collect $200
@Jeff ... you're right ...this repetition is draining :/
"I disagree with your flow charting capabilities."
Well that’s your opinion/decision. I know better fortunately.
“this one arrow needs to be defined as a process on how you "get" to this relative ... any decent flow charter would know this ... so I stick to my conclusion that you are not very good at flow charting.”
Ever heard of milestones? We didn’t define the level of detail, nor did you or Jeff ask for the process. You just asked me to put this into a flowchart. And to me this means focussing on Jeff, from there on see if I can get to pick up on this relative, tuning in to the relative, and then hopefully I can pick up what’s going on (ailments).
“that "arrow" is precisely the aspect of the metaphysical that needs to be defined and proven ...”
Maybe so, but I won’t explain any processes in between, until I get an okay from Jeff here, since I do not feel like being rebuked again for something which was not supposed to be written down in the first place.
But just maybe I’ll describe this on my own blog. That’s what it’s for after all.
Did you notice this blog is looking an awful lot like a chat room?
"Trust me, if I’m good at something it’s creating flowcharts." ~ L
Frankly, I wish you were good at something else. Like, take listening, for example. If you were good at that, you'd likely have saved miles of thread-space and dozens of "head-desk" moments.
"Just telling you how I experience it."
Which amounts to tedious redundancy, since, we're all already familiar with how you explain your various experiences. We'd now like to move past that and have you prove that said experiences have a referent in reality.
"I can’t recall us ever discussing this, so you cannot know how this could work for me."
Show me how it can work for you in any way, and then we'll concentrate on discussing the scenarios when it can't or doesn't work.
"You seem to think that if someone can do, this person can at the same 'easily' do it."
This sentence is incomprehensible.
"You(Bobby) just asked me to put this into a flowchart. And to me this means focussing on Jeff, from there on see if I can get to pick up on this relative, tuning in to the relative, and then hopefully I can pick up what’s going on (ailments)." ~ L
Flow chart, or no flow chart, feel free to explain how/why you need be "focussing(sic) on Jeff" to "pick up" on a relative of his. Are you suggesting that if I'm not thinking of this relative at the *precise* moment that you are attempting to "pick up" on me, that no "spiritual" connection can be made?...keeping in mind that a "spirit" is (presumably) non-physical/non-corporeal? What?..you need my "unconscious" permission to "connect" with my relative?
And yes, I know that sounds ridiculous, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since, then you'd at least know how you sound to me.
"Did you notice this blog is looking an awful lot like a chat room?"
I guess that beats looking like a ghost town.
“We'd now like to move past that and have you prove that said experiences have a referent in reality.”
Yesterday I gave you some info on what I’m planning to do. If that isn’t real, I do not know what will be.
“Show me how it can work for you in any way, and then we'll concentrate on discussing the scenarios when it can't or doesn't work.”
*I’ll give it some thought. It’ll probably be easier if I post something about this on my own blog/site.
Me: "You seem to think that if someone can do, this person can at the same 'easily' do it."
You: “This sentence is incomprehensible.”
Oops. Sorry.
"You seem to think that if someone can do this, this person is also able to do so 'easily'"
“Flow chart, or no flow chart, feel free to explain how/why you need be "focussing(sic) on Jeff" to "pick up" on a relative of his. Are you suggesting that if I'm not thinking of this relative at the *precise* moment that you are attempting to "pick up" on me, that no "spiritual" connection can be made?...keeping in mind that a "spirit" is (presumably) non-physical/non-corporeal?”
See above*. Did the post on “Trouble Sleeping” make any sense to you?
“What?..you need my "unconscious" permission to "connect" with my relative?”
Unconscious? No. Conscious? Yes. But I assume I got your permission when you asked me to answer your question.
Me: "Did you notice this blog is looking an awful lot like a chat room?"
You: “I guess that beats looking like a ghost town.”
:-)
"Yesterday I gave you some info on what I’m planning to do."
The only "info" I can assume you're talking about is telling me that you're going to do..... something. Other than that, I don't know of any sort of details or info', except something about a "password" protected post, and BTW, if you sent something to me in an email, forget it, as I said I don't care to discuss this via private email. I haven't logged into that account in weeks, and I'm not going to.
"I’ll give it some thought. It’ll probably be easier if I post something about this on my own blog/site."
I'm not sure what would make it "easier", but, okay, whatever.
"See above*. Did the post on 'Trouble Sleeping' make any sense to you?"
You're being vague again. "Make sense"... in what regard? Do you mean, does it make sense that a child cannot sleep because of breathing problems or some other problem? Yes, that makes sense. But if you mean, does it make sense that you were given a picture of a child and that you "picked up" on things about said child using something other than imagination or wild guess, then no, that doesn't make sense to me.
Now, if you took one hundred individual photos of children, each of whom who had medically confirmed disease, and if you diagnosed each one of them with 95-100% accuracy, had the results published in a medical journal or some other other peer-reviewed publication, then you might get my attention. As is stands, not so much.
"But I assume I got your permission when you asked me to answer your question."
Exactly. But of course, even with the necessary permission granted, for one reason or another, you are still unable meet the requirement that could change my mind, and this evidently includes the part of the test that doesn't even involve any relatives; only me..i.e..what was written on the business card.
“You can go ahead and plan and implement this idea of yours, and then we can talk when/if you get results that you think should change my mind.”
It’s going to take some time, but when and if it will take off, I’ll probably post something about in on my blog. I wrote something down, I wanted to share with you, but it’s too premature to post it for others. Actually I’m very excited about it, since it includes a student doing “human movement science” who’s going to describe all of it, document it etc. and if I can get it to work, the test results will be provided by a physical therapist. But like I said it’s going to be a lot of work, ‘cause this will involve numerous clients over a longer period of time, all dealing with the same operation and I first have to get one of these physical therapists (working with patients in a hospital) willing to work with me. So Monday talks about this will be continued… Personally this seems more in line with what I do and it’s more scientifically proven than any reading could ever be.
Entire reply was posted at 06:08h below your post with the so called random replies.
"Actually I’m very excited about it, since it includes a student doing 'human movement science' who’s going to describe all of it, document it etc. and if I can get it to work, the test results will be provided by a physical therapist." ~ L
HMS, best as I can tell, is the study of the physical movement of humans(aka kinesiology). No where have I seen anything about any metaphysical aspects so far.
And yes, I now recall reading that, but you didn't describe what the "it" part is when you say, "and if I can get it to work", etc. If you had, it probably wouldn't have gotten lost in the shuffle.
My sister in law says: moose and 98.
She also said a younger brother having cancer of the Adam's Apple, (which I would say to be thyroid cancer, but then again it is not my answer) as a result of alcohol. There's a wound inside the throat and he should have problems swallowing.
“And yes, I now recall reading that, but you didn't describe what the "it" part is when you say, "and if I can get it to work"”
What I’m planning on doing, but again I do not know whether it’s optional, is to find out if I can treat patients who had the same type of knee surgery. At first I was thinking about knee replacements, since I’ve seen very quick results with my own client (6 weeks down the line at age 77 he’s walking without crutches), but just maybe it’ll involve some other type of procedure. What I’m thinking about is treating groups with separate methods, one being massage, one just energetic therapy and one a combination of the both. I assume they already know what the normal (average) results are and this way it can be determined objectively whether it makes any difference what I do and, if so, if there’s a difference when it comes to working with energy. It’s scientifically based, not on my findings, but someone else’s, monitored and described by the student kinesiology, so it sounds legit enough to me. This should give me answers I (and hopefully also others) can benefit from. And if this were to show the energetic treatments have no effect, well that would say quite a bit.
Lexje, You’re telling me/us Kinesiology is scientifically based, what a hocus-pocus.
Kinesiology ‘Heart of Science , Energy Healing & Touch for Health’ uses knowledge from acupuncture, chiropractic and nutrition.
Watch this video, she looks like a parrot,the audience seems to find it all very amusing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gIXBKXoIbDI
And now you’re also asking your Sister in law about what she ‘feels’ so you won’t be ‘judged’ by Jeff .... hahaha ... no more words needed Duh !
Check human movement SCIENCE at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesiology
Please note the difference:
Kinesiology as described above should not be confused with applied kinesiology, a controversial chiropractic diagnostic method.
Calling something "Science" does not actually MAKE it a science ... see my reference somewhere around here regarding Unicorn Veterinary Science/medicine.
That said - I know nothing about "Kinesiology" so i'll defer to those who are knowledgeable on the subject to make that determination ... just wanted to make the point that a proclamation does not assure fact ... and with THAT said - i find it curious that such a well respected and accepted "science" such as "Kinesiology" is not even considered a real word in my spellchecker - the suggested "correct" spelling for "Kinesiology" is suggested to be Anesthesiology - which i HAVE heard of and accept as a real science ... to be fair, spellcheckers are notoriously limited and in some instances downright retarded. ;)
"i find it curious that such a well respected and accepted "science" such as "Kinesiology" is not even considered a real word in my spellchecker"
The official term is "human movement science". Maybe that will help? Then again kinesio means movement. So study of movement.
Maybe that will help?
Please refer back to the multiple caveats and disclaimers you had to read through to extract my quote:
to be fair, spellcheckers are notoriously limited
Just because i recognize my ignorance as to what "Kinesiology" is does not mean i am incapable of properly researching through Google/Wikipedia etc. on knowing how to update/modify my spell checker with the "add to dictionary" feature. Don't assume your limitations in these areas require that others MUST have the same limitation ... i just don't have the overwhelming desire and/or motivation or time to research what "Kinesiology" is.
See:
"That said - I know nothing about "Kinesiology" so i'll defer to those who are knowledgeable on the subject to make that determination"
Repeating ... how fun :(
"My sister in law says: moose and 98" ~ L
Is your sister-in-law also a metaphysical therapist or some other sort of metaphysical practitioner? Or is she just taking a wild guess? In any case, whether metaphysical practitioner, or wild guess, it's the wrong answer. 'Coincidence?
"She also said a younger brother having cancer of the Adam's Apple, (which I would say to be thyroid cancer, but then again it is not my answer) as a result of alcohol. There's a wound inside the throat and he should have problems swallowing."
None of that.
Regarding video recommendation by Anonymous:
Very interesting, in an unconvincing sort of way. Thx for posting/visiting.
... he should have problems swallowing.
Now now ... lets be fair ... there's a lot of us around here who are having great difficulties "swallowing" the guff being bandied about here ... but then that's like the "spirits" telling you that water is wet
:P :D
“Is your sister-in-law also a metaphysical therapist…”
Nope.
“…or some other sort of metaphysical practitioner?”
Practioner? No. But she does get info and she wanted to know whether this was right. Well, alas.
Yesterday I posted something about HMS and “it”. If you’re not planning on responding to what I posted, I just might take it off. It’s still an idea and I don’t know if I can put it to work. If it were to work out it should give some objective answers. So I’m curious as to what you think about this idea.
"Practioner? No. But she does get info and she wanted to know whether this was right." ~ L(italics added)
My goodness. Could you possibly be more vague? She gets info', does she? You mean, in the mail? From a crystal ball? Or is this just another case of someone who "feels" stuff and is convinced those feelings are more than just that....feelings, AKA, a hunch?
"Yesterday I posted something about HMS and 'it'. If you’re not planning on responding to what I posted, I just might take it off."
I see nothing wrong with the test you are proposing. My only concern would be whether or not someone with a scientific background will be overseeing the entire trial.
“She gets info', does she? You mean…”
I mean that she sees things and hears things in her mind. However she has not been trained and as such she does not know how accurate her information is. She wanted to know.
“My only concern would be whether or not someone with a scientific background will be overseeing the entire trial.”
Well, we have the student HMS to set up the test and document it and then there will be either a doctor and/or a physical therapist, who’s guiding/treating the patients daily, thus monitoring their progress. As said, I have some possibilities in the back of my mind, but I do not know whether I can get support/permission from the hospital or other disciplines (taking care of the patients), so I can’t tell you yet which disciplines will be involved (if I can get it done).
This project (as I like to call it for now) would be more fitting for me than the tests you’d proposed, since this is what I’m doing in daily life. As such I would really like to know what the results can be attributed to and if what I am doing (different techniques) is speeding up the recovery process or not.
If you were to have any suggestions with regards to this "project", I'd like to know. After all, if it wasn't for all of your questions and remarks, I would never have thought of this to begin with.
Maybe this tells you I do take the things you are saying seriously.
If you’re not planning on responding to what I posted, I just might take it off.
Can i propose that if you truly believe in what you say and have any conviction ... you at least try to stand by your words? ... i mean really? you're so "convinced" that you're threatening to "take your toys and go home" because other don't "respond" according to your design? ... I remember a "pastor" visitor here some time back with had this same "conviction" in his "faith" ... disappointing :/
"...you're so "convinced" that you're threatening to "take your toys and go home" because other don't "respond"..."
There's a totally different reason for this and I said so before. I do not want to go public with this idea yet, since I do not know what's optional and what's not. The only reason I put it there is to show you and Jeff that I am serious when it comes to investigating my "claims" and having this tested in a scientifically based setting.
There's a totally different reason for this
pick any "reason" you want ... doesn't change that it comes off as a petulant child having a temper tantrum for not getting it's way ... bottom line, if you post it, OWN it ... i'f you can't OWN it, don't post it in the first place
"The only reason I put it there is to show you and Jeff that I am serious when it comes to investigating my 'claims' and having this tested in a scientifically based setting." ~ L
I think it shows things like determination and self-respect that you want us to take you seriously on this matter of proving your metaphysical claims. However, a very crucial and obvious question arises, a question that lies nagging in the back of my mind, and perhaps in the back of the minds of other readers.
That question is this:
What on nature's green earth makes Lady Lexje think that, out of the millions(billions?) of people alive on the planet today who also believe in, study, practice, support, advocate the "metaphysical", that she is the FIRST and ONLY person to come along who wants to be taken seriously; who has self-respect; who is determined, and also, the first to be met with skepticism????????
My guess - 'just a guess, mind you - is that you do not think any of that. If my guess is right, then the next obvious question is this: What do you think the reason is, that, to date, no one...NO-frickin'-BODY...has provided evidence for the metaphysical(including "God") that satisfies the scientific community? I mean, what...millions have just had bad luck? Or, millions are just too lazy to put a test together? Or, out of millions of people, no one cares if they aren't taken seriously by skeptics?????
Please ponder this *before* you answer.
"bottom line, if you post it, OWN it ... i'f you can't OWN it, don't post it in the first place"
True, it doesn't exactly exude confidence. The "expiration date" seems suspect, too. Albeit, she has explained that she is "hyper".
Would you mind if I share my steps/actions/progress in this project? I mean the talks with the scientific community? It helps me stay focussed and with it on target... :-)
And I'll answer that question about "why" later when I'm at home and I have time to think about it.
My guess - 'just a guess, mind you ... ~J
Can't fool me ... you're "channeling" spirits here :P
Albeit, she has explained that she is "hyper".
Not really my problem to resolve, now is it?
"Would you mind if I share my steps/actions/progress in this project? I mean the talks with the scientific community? It helps me stay focussed and with it on target..."
If writing down said steps/actions, etc., helps you stay focused and on target, why not write them on your own blog, or perhaps even in a saved email draft? If I sit here and critique the various steps along the way, a) there's a high chance you'll become discouraged, disgruntled, and end up claiming you can't give the evidence for one reason or another, and b) it will take a bazillion-times longer for the bottom line.
"And I'll answer that question about "why" later when I'm at home and I have time to think about it."
Take all of the time that you need. For that matter, *take more time than you need.
(*on the extremely off-chance there was a "light-bulb" moment, it could save you a lot of work and aggravation)
"Can't fool me ... you're 'channeling' spirits here"
If I could channel spirits, I'd be spending my time having Anna Nicole talk dirty to me, not blogging = )
“True, it doesn't exactly exude confidence.”
The reason for this is I’m not certain I can pull it off. I’ll probably have to “battle” with a number of sceptics, and if not, then I at least have to put together a real good story with all the right reasons, properly explained in order to get others on the scientific side interested and motivated.
“If writing down said steps/actions, etc., helps you stay focused and on target, why not write them on your own blog, or perhaps even in a saved email draft?”
Trust me, I have my own “to-do” list. It helps with the discipline, but not at all when it comes to motivation.
“If I sit here and critique the various steps along the way, a) there's a high chance you'll become discouraged, disgruntled…”
Criticism does not necessarily equal discouragement. Besides why would you? The only reason I can think of, is if this were to be getting nowhere on my side (as in going towards pseudo-science instead of real scientific data) and please note that this would be an excellent reason to say something about this. Otherwise what would be the use of this (probably long-term) project?
“…and end up claiming you can't give the evidence for one reason or another…”
I might assume that not being able to give evidence would have other reasons, than just being discouraged by you (which again I do not see any reasons for, since the goal after all is getting things proven scientifically).
“… and b) it will take a bazillion-times longer for the bottom line.”
Why?
“Take all of the time that you need. For that matter, *take more time than you need.”
I can also NOT answer the question, if it were to be meant rhetorical that is… You seem to know the answer yourself, so why won’t you tell me?
"Can't fool me ... you're 'channeling' spirits here" ~ B
“If I could channel spirits, I'd be spending my time having Anna Nicole talk dirty to me, not blogging = )” ~ J
Channelling spirits requires an enormous amount of fantasy, just think of what you’d be able to come up with having this ability…
Me: “True, it doesn't exactly exude confidence.”
You: "The reason for this is I’m not certain I can pull it off."
Right, squaring-up nicely with.....it doesn't exactly exude confidence.
"I’ll probably have to 'battle' with a number of sceptics[...]"
Ah, yes...those ornery, bullheaded skeptics, all tryin' to decrease bias and increase the reliability of the test results. The nerve!
"[...] and if not, then I at least have to put together a real good story with all the right reasons, properly explained in order to get others on the scientific side interested and motivated."
If any group is "motivated", I think it's scientists. And to say that a scientist wouldn't be interested in finding a hereto forth unproven "force" in the universe is......well, it's nuts.
"Criticism does not necessarily equal discouragement."
Perhaps not. But just a cursory look at your blog, which is more or less a journal of your encounters here, and I think it becomes clear that being met with skepticism as been discouraging for you.
Me :"and b) it will take a bazillion-times longer for the bottom line."
"Why?
wHY? You've got to be jerkin' my chain. Um...LOOK around. If you are preoccupied with posting here, and worse, start tweaking if you aren't responded to in a time-frame that you deem suitable, how on earth will you find the time to arrange and implement this plan of yours?
"You seem to know the answer yourself, so why won’t you tell me?"
For the same reason I don't tell a Christian, "Guess what?...your god doesn't exist", after they've just defended their belief in said god for the last 6 months. I.e...it's pointless; they have to find out on their own.
"Channelling spirits requires an enormous amount of fantasy[...]" ~ L
“If any group is "motivated", I think it's scientists. And to say that a scientist wouldn't be interested in finding a hereto forth unproven "force" in the universe is......well, it's nuts.”
It’s motivation for finding new evidence versus not believing this will ever be possible.
“… and I think it becomes clear that being met with skepticism has been discouraging for you.”
Not so much being met with scepticism, but having to deal with the “attacks”, even when not meant personal at all. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of scepticism, especially not if it leads to a change in thinking.
“I.e...it's pointless; they have to find out on their own.”
You are telling me that first you thought it a good idea to tell me to come up with evidence (if I cared about you believing me) and now I’m talking to others about this, you’re telling me it’s no use at all? How sweet. You are right, it does not come across as very encouraging. Fortunately other (skeptic)s do not agree with you.
"Not so much being met with scepticism, but having to deal with the 'attacks', even when not meant personal at all." ~ L
I'm thinking (and hoping) that you mean "attacks" on quack-medicine/therapies, in general, and not you, personally.
If I'm right on that, then okay, fine, I'm good with calling it an "attack". Yes---it's an attack on those things in the same way that doctors made an "attack" on rabies by making a vaccine for it.
Me: “I.e...it's pointless; they have to find out on their own.”
You: "You are telling me tha[SNIP]"
First, please STOP f%$#ing quoting me OUT of context. Thx.
"[....] first you thought it a good idea to tell me to come up with evidence (if I cared about you believing me) and now I’m talking to others about this, you’re telling me it’s no use at all? How sweet."
Here's the exchange leading up to your latest partial quote, in its entirety:
Me: What on nature's green earth makes Lady Lexje think that, out of the millions(billions?) of people alive on the planet today who also believe in, study, practice, support, advocate the "metaphysical", that she is the FIRST and ONLY person to come along who wants to be taken seriously; who has self-respect; who is determined, and also, the first to be met with skepticism????????
My guess - 'just a guess, mind you - is that you do not think any of that. If my guess is right, then the next obvious question is this: What do you think the reason is, that, to date, no one...NO-frickin'-BODY...has provided evidence for the metaphysical(including "God") that satisfies the scientific community? I mean, what...millions have just had bad luck? Or, millions are just too lazy to put a test together? Or, out of millions of people, no one cares if they aren't taken seriously by skeptics?????
Please ponder this *before* you answer.
You: "You seem to know the answer yourself, so why won’t you tell me?"
Me: For the same reason I don't tell a Christian, "Guess what?...your god doesn't exist", after they've just defended their belief in said god for the last 6 months. I.e...it's pointless; they have to find out on their own.
Now, let's go back in time.
Had I, at the onset of these exchanges, said, "Guess what, Lexje? All metaphysical claims are bunk. End of discussion", can you keep a straight face and tell me that this proclamation would have settled things for you????
The point being this: YOU insinuated that I knew the real reason that, to date, no metaphysical claim has ever been objectively confirmed by the scientific community. And yes, I do think that I know the more likely answer to that, and that is that "metaphysical" is just a word(like "Scientology"); it has zero referent in the physical universe. Bluntly stated, it's a steaming pile of guano.
'Follow so far?
So, you, just like the Christian who dogmatically clings to his or her "feelings" and "experiences", are not going to let go without a fight. This is why I'm going along with your "idea" to prove your claims..i.e..so that you can once and for all prove that your "feelings" and "experiences" are not just all in your imagination(as I and others believe they are)
"You are right, it does not come across as very encouraging."
It's the whole reading comprehension thing again. You evidently read between the lines and see what precisely what you want to see. Interestingly, this only reinforces my belief that you do the same exact thing when it comes to your "metaphysical" powers.
"Fortunately other (skeptic)s do not agree with you."
a) everybody's a skeptic when it comes to something. b) you've totally misinterpreted the above-quoted conversation.
I’ll say upfront I shifted the order (without taking it out of context), for the following reason: I’m still grumpy when it comes to this part, while I understand you much better now when it comes to the second part. So yes I’ve been thinking of deleting it, however leaving it out doesn’t add up either.
Part I
“I'm thinking (and hoping) that you mean "attacks" on quack-medicine/therapies, in general, and not you, personally.”
Well yes, sort of and then some more. Not me personally, but still you say I “give way” with my practice to others and this (in?)directly tells me you do not agree with what I’m doing at my practice. It’s kinda hard to separate this from me as a person.
“First, please STOP f%$#ing quoting me OUT of context. Thx.”
I’m sorry I didn’t know what part to use… You needed to go back two posts (and then some more) as well. If that's what it takes, I'll do so next time.
“It's the whole reading comprehension thing again. You evidently read between the lines and see what precisely what you want to see.”
There’s a very big difference between reading between the lines (noticing what’s not been said and getting into this) and only noticing what I want to see (this is called a blind spot, as a result of a mindset). So just maybe you could be more specific with what it is you’re saying here.
“Interestingly, this only reinforces my belief that you do the same exact thing when it comes to your "metaphysical" powers.”
Would you mind explaining what you mean here some more?
Part II
*“Had I, at the onset of these exchanges, said, "Guess what, Lexje? All metaphysical claims are bunk. End of discussion", can you keep a straight face and tell me that this proclamation would have settled things for you????”
It wouldn’t have, so no I can’t.
“So, you, just like the Christian who dogmatically clings to his or her "feelings" and "experiences", are not going to let go without a fight.”
You’ve been there, so yes you are right. I wouldn’t accept your conclusion if I’m not going to get there first.
“This is why I'm going along with your "idea" to prove your claims..i.e..so that you can once and for all prove that your "feelings" and "experiences" are not just all in your imagination(as I and others believe they are)”**
It’s adding this bit from * to ** what explains what it is you are saying. I basically need this time to get to that same conclusion you already have reached. The downside being it’s going to cost me a lot of time to realize what the truth will be.
Me: "Fortunately other (skeptic)s do not agree with you."
You: “b) you've totally misinterpreted the above-quoted conversation.”
With the addition of “going along first, so I can come up with the truth myself”, I understand the “why” better. If this is not what you meant, please let me know. If it is, thanx for taking me by the hand/dragging me back so I would understand.
Me: “I'm thinking (and hoping) that you mean 'attacks' on quack-medicine/therapies, in general, and not you, personally.”
You: "Well yes, sort of and then some more."
So much for being decisive.
"Not me personally, but still you say I 'give way' with my practice to others[...]"
Yes, that's correct, I said that. And I was very specific as to what I meant by it, and as well, what I did not mean by it.
"[...]and this (in?)directly tells me you do not agree with what I’m doing at my practice."
That I "do not agree" is a very broad conclusion for a very complex issue.
- if you are proposing that you have any effect on your clients other than pure coincidence, and/or, aliments healing on their own, and/or, placebo effect, then yes, I disagree.
- I agree that your clients might leave feeling like they are getting better.
- I disagree that when your clients leave feeling better that this doesn't come with a high price, since people can be deceived into thinking that "alternative therapies" can do much more than what they actually do.
To make an analogy, you are like the person at an AA meeting who says, "Look, if you drink responsibly and use common sense, there should be no problems". I'm not making this analogy to make you feel bad; I'm making it to get you to see my perspective.
"It’s kinda hard to separate this from me as a person"
That separating the two things is difficult doesn't change the fact that I'm NOT attacking you, personally. And if it makes you "grumpy" to think otherwise, well, I don't feel that's my problem. Idk....maybe try not to think otherwise?
"There’s a very big difference between reading between the lines (noticing what’s not been said and getting into this) and only noticing what I want to see (this is called a blind spot, as a result of a mindset)."
The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can set out to notice "what's not being said" because it's what you want to notice. Or, you can notice face-value language and see it how you want to see it.
"Would you mind explaining what you mean here some more?"
Two words: Confirmation bias.
"I basically need this time to get to that same conclusion you already have reached."
Who's stopping you?
"The downside being it’s going to cost me a lot of time to realize what the truth will be"
I think that pales in comparison to *the downside of going through one's life believing a lie. But that's just me.
*please don't ask me what that downside is; I've already been over it.
"If it is, thanx for taking me by the hand/dragging me back so I would understand."
It's okay, I'm getting used to it, albeit, it can make things tedious at times.
Continued…
Me: "I basically need this time to get to that same conclusion you already have reached."
You: “Who's stopping you?”
My surroundings? I’m determined to find out if what I’m doing really makes a difference. And like I said I do need people who are willing to do this “project” (research) with me.
Me: "The downside being it’s going to cost me a lot of time to realize what the truth will be"
You: “I think that pales in comparison to *the downside of going through one's life believing a lie. But that's just me.”
No more lies if it’s up to me… I wonder if that’s still possible after becoming aware of what I’ve taken for granted till recently.
Me: "If it is, thanx for taking me by the hand/dragging me back so I would understand."
You: “It's okay, I'm getting used to it, albeit, it can make things tedious at times.”
Again I value the time you take out to show me the different things and I know I’m picking up certain things slowly, being “tedious” unintentionally, but I’m getting there, as in understanding you. And I may not always agree with you (this could easily be an understatement), but it makes me wonder about how I’ve been viewing things up till now. And I guess that’s a big step in itself.
The thing that gets my attention the most is this part....
"[....] other people are trying to pull me right back in, by saying again and again that I need to stick by what I know to be true and what I’ve experienced."
So, here you are, seemingly wanting to follow truth no matter where it leads, even if that truth reveals that you are wrong, and you have your friends, family, and colleagues trying to hold you back from that.
This should be an enormous red flag. In fact, this is the same dynamic that we see among Christians trying to keep believers from straying; trying to keep them in the fold. I cannot help but see this as characteristic of any other "cult". It's the whole.... Just trust what you already know to be true, dear. Your experiences and feelings cannot be wrong!, mentality. Both sad and frightening at the same time.
My 2 cents? I would tell them, "Yes, but if you're so sure that I'm right, then I have nothing to lose. The truth isn't afraid."(or something similar)
“So, here you are, seemingly wanting to follow truth no matter where it leads, even if that truth reveals that you are wrong, and you have your friends, family, and colleagues trying to hold you back from that.”
Correct, while meanwhile all I want right now is the possibility to find out if it is true, but this does not seem to be acceptable. It’s a waste of time, effort, you name it.
“It's the whole.... Just trust what you already know to be true, dear. Your experiences and feelings cannot be wrong!, mentality.”
This bit gets to me when I read it. They say so from a caring kind of perspective. But with it, they do not think about what it is I need right now, which is finding out whether these things to do with spirituality/metaphysics actually are true or not. All they keep saying is I’m highly influenced by you and I should know better, than to let you get to me.
“My 2 cents? I would tell them, "Yes, but if you're so sure that I'm right, then I have nothing to lose. The truth isn't afraid."”
I already tell them, if what I’ve always (or at last couple of years) said to be true indeed is the truth, it will show in time, regardless of whether I’m influenced by you or not.
'they do not think about what it is I need right now' ... L
TELL them what you need instead of pretending that you appreciate their response !!
"TELL them what you need instead of pretending that you appreciate their response !!"
Believe me, I do. I’m pretty straight forward. Does this mean they will change their mind about telling me? Not a chance. Only the very few who really (try to) understand why I want/need to know, will accept what I’m saying without trying to pull me back in.
"TELL them what you need instead of pretending that you appreciate their response !!" ~ Anon'
If she is in fact pretending to appreciate their responses, but yet, comes here to vent by revealing that she is fact does not appreciate those responses, then, at best, I'd say there's some inconsistency on her part. Moreover, whereas her friends, family, colleagues, etc., might think they are being helpful, they are actually doing her a disservice, in the long run.
"[....]they do not think about what it is I need right now[...]" ~ L
Right. They'd rather enable you to stay right you're at. They want you to be happy, yes, but probably more importantly(to them), they probably cringe at the thought of you discovering that you could be mistaken/self-deceived. The reason? Why, of course, because that would then mean that they, too, could be mistaken/self-deceived.
"All they keep saying is I’m highly influenced by you and I should know better, than to let you get to me." ~ L
I contend that it's not me who's getting to you, but that it's your own inner voice that's getting to you.
“They want you to be happy, yes…”
They most certainly do, however they also see me frowning, wondering about “where to go from here?”. I guess that also reminds them of the way things used to be. After all, at one time everything was (seemed) okay and now it isn’t anymore.
“…but probably more importantly (to them), they probably cringe at the thought of you discovering that you could be mistaken/self-deceived. The reason? Why, of course, because that would then mean that they, too, could be mistaken/self-deceived.”
It’s that and actually a bit more. I’m after all the person who has preceded them in most “adventures” (read studies and courses), having explained things to them and now I’m telling them: “You know what? I’m not that certain anymore about all of it... so sure I can tell you what I used to think, but what the truth actually is… well… good question!”
“I contend that it's not me who's getting to you, but that it's your own inner voice that's getting to you.”
It’s a bit of both. It’s the way you can say things to me and the impact they have on me. And then there’s me thinking about the truth behind it, making me see things differently and doubtful all of a sudden.
Show me the polite way to let someone know that their personal beliefs about how the world operates could be mistaken, and I'll show you a person who will let it in one ear and out the other.
“Show me the polite way to let someone know that their personal beliefs about how the world operates could be mistaken, and I'll show you a person who will let it in one ear and out the other.”
When it comes to getting through to someone, I agree with you that it can take more than just being “polite”, as in being “outright blunt”. Depending on the reaction and the introspection of the person involved it might be one or the other, or something in the middle.
However, I do believe that respect and trust are equally as important to have the other come to their senses. Without this, one can wonder if the other one will pay any more attention to things after returning to normal life / speaking to others about this.
And before you say so… with me, it usually requires being outright blunt, especially since I’m not that fond of people tiptoeing around me. As said before, I’m okay with you being this blunt and getting me back straight in line when needed; as long as I have the feeling I can trust you and know your intent is serious.
This statement...
as long as I have the feeling I can trust you and know your intent is serious.
...tells me that you know that trust is earned.
So when you say...
I do believe that respect and trust are equally as important to have the other come to their senses
...I assume that you know that you must earn those things from me. And of course, again, there's always the fact that you came and found me; I did not come find you.
And as far as "serious" goes, I don't know what would possess you to think that I'd engage someone for months on end if my intentions weren't serious.
Just curious… Did you read the bit about “Confirmation Bias and Mindsets”, which I posted last night? Although reading your last reply, I’m not sure I should even suggest to you to read this.
No, I hadn't read it, but I just took a cursory look, and frankly, I have trouble trying to extract your meaning, as I do much of the time. I mean, I'm helpful, but annoying? Also, this whole business of coming here, selectively mining quotes, and then running back to your own blog to address them there is something that's wearing thin on me. In fact, I think I'm done with it.
In the future, if you have something you want me to know, you can tell me right here, especially if you feel the need to critique my "bedside manner". Thx.
“…and frankly, I have trouble trying to extract your meaning, as I do much of the time. I mean, I'm helpful, but annoying?”
Yes, you could say so. You’re helpful since you get to me think of/reconsider stuff. You’re annoying at the same time with how you say things. So there are moments I’m very happy with what you’re saying and the effort you put it in and there are moments… well you figure it out…
“Also, this whole business of coming here, selectively mining quotes, and then running back to your own blog to address them there is something that's wearing thin on me. In fact, I think I'm done with it.”
Adding to what I just said, it’s a bit of a struggle I’m having at the moment. I do not want to get in “fights” or in “hurtful arguments” and lately it seems to be heading this way. There are a number of times I’m reading your responses and I’d like to yell back at you, but I cannot do so, since it is your blog after all, and besides, what good would come out of it? None, whatsoever. I do want to respond at such a moment, I just don’t know how and that’s when I either decide to just leave it, or go to my own blog, just to make sense of things.
What you’re reading on my blog is my own struggle. And if this is confusing for you, than just maybe it is, because it is confusing to me as well. I do not want to get all emotional anymore, it’s draining all my energy and that’s not worth it. At the same time I do feel you’re holding a “key” to Idk… a certain way of thinking/reasoning, putting things in a new perspective. And it’s like a constant “hunger” for new insights. You are one of the few who just gives it to me straight, taking the time to explain some more if necessary, or you’ll tell me to “look things up” and that’s priceless. I’ve had more (very useful) insights here, then I’ve had in a long time.
“In the future, if you have something you want me to know, you can tell me right here, especially if you feel the need to critique my "bedside manner". Thx.”
And then yes, there’s an immense downside. I constantly get told I need to earn your respect, since I’ve done it all wrong in the past and besides that this is getting old news, it gets to me, each time anew.
Though I’m not afraid to say what I’m thinking, I am very careful when it comes to saying those things - here -, since they can so easily be misunderstood. I’ve seen it happening over and over lately and this makes me very sad. It seems there’s always something in the back of your mind, telling you, you need to be careful around me, or the likes of me and that I always have an ulterior motive. I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again, I’m a pretty honest and open girl; I just keep to myself a lot when it comes to what I’m really thinking, with the exception – maybe – of coming here.
So yes, if it helps me to post things on my own blog and to sort stuff out over there, it seems like a “wiser” and “far more sensible” thing to do, au contraire to coming here and having things interpreted wrongly, since it was never meant to have a certain intention.
You know, even when writing this down, I really do not know what to expect. It can go either way, you can be either be understanding and calm about it (even be okay with it), or you can fly off the handle (solely for me writing this down and triggering something) and I do not want to be this careful about what I’m writing down all the time. And that’s the upside of my own blog, I can write it down with all my doubts and questions and, yes also, with all the compliments addressed to you.
"Yes, you could say so. You’re helpful since you get to me think of/reconsider stuff. You’re annoying at the same time with how you say things."
My approach is very direct and provocative, yes, and this is something that I readily admit, and as well, it's something for which I have no qualms, and I've explained again and again why.
Now, I don't know what would make you think that, given the above admission, that having to repeat myself multiple times, that I would magically become more light-hearted with each time that repeating myself is *necessary(*short of just ignoring you). I think basic logic and human nature would say that it would go the other way---that is, I would become more impatient and agitated with each time.
And then of course, we didn't start with a clean slate, given that you came and found me here, posted anonymously, and this was after you were blocked on a networking site.
What I'm trying to say, if it's not clear, is that *you* (could have) contributed to the very thing that you claim to find annoying, which, according to you, is "the way" I say things.
"What you’re reading on my blog is my own struggle."
I wish you well with said struggle. Notwithstanding - and I'm not sure there's a nice (non-annoying?) way to say this - but I just don't want to be involved with that struggle anymore. Only you know what you must do, because only you know what will/will not satisfy your curiosity on these matters. I rang "the bell", yes, but I did not come stand outside your door to ring it. No, you came to my door, and I opened the door. Once in my house, the "the bell" went off, and now you cannot "unring" it.
"au contraire to coming here and having things interpreted wrongly[..]"
Sometimes things are misinterpreted; other times, I'm interpreting things just fine, I just disagree.
“My approach is very direct and provocative, yes, and this is something that I readily admit, and as well, it's something for which I have no qualms, and I've explained again and again why.”
It’s just fine that you’re being very direct. You being very provocative, I get that too. However, it can also lead to the other way around and that’s when things get tricky.
“… with each time that repeating myself is *necessary(*short of just ignoring you).”
You just lost me here. You ignoring me, while repeating yourself, would seem contradictive.
“What I'm trying to say, if it's not clear, is that *you* (could have) contributed to the very thing that you claim to find annoying, which, according to you, is "the way" I say things.”
I’m quite sure I contributed to this. If I were to have the knowledge I do now, I’d done/said things differently, but that’s always easy to say in retrospect.
“…but I just don't want to be involved with that struggle anymore.”
And this would be accomplished how exactly? Not quote you anymore? As you said so yourself
“"the bell" went off” and now I cannot "unring" it anymore. With you opening the door, the “struggle” got started in the first place. The origin of the struggle might have been smouldering somewhere else already, but the result… I cannot pretend I’ve never been inside your “home”.
"It’s just fine that you’re being very direct. You being very provocative, I get that too. However, it can also lead to the other way around and that’s when things get tricky" ~ L
Things can "get tricky"? No. Things either square-up with logic and reason, or they don't. My delivery says nothing at all as to if my position squares-up in the way I just mentioned.
"You just lost me here. You ignoring me, while repeating yourself, would seem contradictive"
....because you either miss or circumvent the context. See the word "necessary". I'm saying that I don't have to repeat myself---I could always just ignore you. IOW, as tedious as it can sometimes be, I'm still choosing to keep repeating myself.
"And this would be accomplished how exactly?
Mainly, by me not involving myself
"Not quote you anymore?"
Actually, I would prefer that you didn't. On the other hand, I know the likely alternative is that you'll paraphrase me instead, which could be disastrous. In the end, though, I can't control how you interact with this blog(well, unless I make this blog "membership only").
"With you opening the door, the 'struggle' got started in the first place."
I didn't lure you to my door, though. You dug around and found it on your own.
"I cannot pretend I’ve never been inside your 'home'."
It seems that the thing to do, then, is, ASAP, get the answers that you seek. And if I'm not mistaken, this won't be achieved dialoguing back 'n forth with me daily. In fact, that will slow things down.
“Things can "get tricky"? No. Things either square-up with logic and reason, or they don't.”
Your message might align with logic and reason. All I was talking about is that it’s just not the best idea if I were to respond likewise (provocative). Then we would have a problem, trust me.
“....because you either miss or circumvent the context. See the word "necessary". I'm saying that I don't have to repeat myself---I could always just ignore you.”
Ah, I see. Then I did understand you correctly. I wasn’t sure because of the way you wrote it down.
“IOW, as tedious as it can sometimes be, I'm still choosing to keep repeating myself.”
:-)
Me: "Not quote you anymore?"
You: “Actually, I would prefer that you didn't. On the other hand, I know the likely alternative is that you'll paraphrase me instead, which could be disastrous.”
This was indeed what I was thinking: You don’t like it when I say something, without quoting you, as was said specifically by you before… And besides I thought it was easier for you if I used my own blog to think about certain things, instead of posting them here?
BTW, where did you learn a word like “paraphrase”? If I hadn’t done a study for coaching, I would never have known that word.
“In the end, though, I can't control how you interact with this blog(well, unless I make this blog "membership only").”
Well you could ask me to stay away, but then again…
“I didn't lure you to my door, though. You dug around and found it on your own.”
Yes I’d found out it when I was bored out of my mind going home from Germany while being on a train. This was during the time I was way too hyper to ever have been chatting with you. However, it happened. Saying this, I can stay away if needed, believe it or not.
Me: "I cannot pretend I’ve never been inside your 'home'."
You: “It seems that the thing to do, then, is, ASAP, get the answers that you seek. And if I'm not mistaken, this won't be achieved dialoguing back 'n forth with me daily. In fact, that will slow things down.”
What answers are you talking about? The ones I get from this blog, or the one having to do with my "project"? The latter won’t be slowed down by going to this blog. I’m depending on others for info. The first ones give me a lot to think about, which I also use for my day-to-day business, so it’s not like wasted time for me. Is it for you?
"All I was talking about is that it’s just not the best idea if I were to respond likewise (provocative). Then we would have a problem, trust me."
Really?..."we"? Feel free to explain how that would be my problem.
"Ah, I see. Then I did understand you correctly. I wasn’t sure because of the way you wrote it down."
Could it be that I explained it just fine, but because you're so eager to respond, you saw it as you wanted to see it? In any case, here I am clarifying again. And again, and again, and again.
":-)"
It pleases you, does it?
"[...] I thought it was easier for you if I used my own blog to think about certain things, instead of posting them here?"
I'm still not convinced that you need a blog to "think about certain things". It seems to me that you're mostly using your blog to (indirectly) address me and what I post here. This seems to be confirmed when you ask, "Have you seen [X, Y, and Z] on my blog, yet?"
"You don’t like it when I say something, without quoting you[....]"
NO---*I don't like it when you say I say something without quoting me.
"as was said specifically by you before"
See here*, and what I also meant, was, when/if you quote two or more people, to specify who's saying what.
"BTW, where did you learn a word like 'paraphrase'?"
I don't recall the exact time and place I learned that word(and this goes pretty much for any other word I know, except for cuss words, which I learned in grade school)
"Well you could ask me to stay away, but then again…"
and...
"[....]I can stay away if needed, believe it or not."
What happened to, "but then again"?
"What answers are you talking about? The ones I get from this blog, or the one having to do with my 'project'?"
I'm talking about obtaining and proffering the evidence that could confirm your metaphysical claims once and for all. If you could get busy and obtain said evidence, it seems to me that seeking answers from a skeptic such as myself would become unnecessary.
"The latter won’t be slowed down by going to this blog."
Well, it certainly won't be sped up, either.
"[...]so it’s not like wasted time for me. Is it for you?"
At this point, it's about the redundancy of things...e.g..clarifying over and over, and re-explaining myself over and over.
“Really?..."we"? Feel free to explain how that would be my problem.”
Provocative is about getting someone off-balance, mostly by being straight forward and targeting someone’s weaknesses with a specific purpose. Now let’s say, I’d return the favour, would you be okay with this? If so, no problem whatsoever.
“Could it be that I explained it just fine…”
There was a little language barrier here and because of this, I didn’t understand it correctly. Since I wanted to be certain I asked it again. Sorry for having you clarifying it again and again and again, just know it's always appreciated. I'm becoming more and more aware there are some words I've always given a (slightly) different meaning to. If I have doubts I do look them up (which is quite often), but sometimes I just miss it.
Me: ":-)"
You: “It pleases you, does it?”
I appreciate the effort. It’s my way of saying “thank you” for doing so.
“I'm still not convinced that you need a blog to "think about certain things".”
Writing always has been the perfect method for getting my thoughts organized. Since I use my blog to reflect my thoughts, it’s both useful for me, but also to others.
“It seems to me that you're mostly using your blog to (indirectly) address me and what I post here.”
There is a reason I moved my blog from my business website to this one. Is it meant to address you? Not specifically. Is it meant to make sense of what you say? It most certainly is. And then there is some other stuff I post on the site as well.
“This seems to be confirmed when you ask, "Have you seen [X, Y, and Z] on my blog, yet?"
You might have noticed I only do so, when I feel it’s important you’ve read the blog that precedes the answer. I seldom post the full answer I’ve written on my blog on yours. But sometimes is does contain stuff I’d like you to know.
“NO---*I don't like it when you say I say something without quoting me.”
My fault… forgot to put “you say” in between.
“What happened to, "but then again"?”
It’s not like I can’t, but I already know I would miss it and it would probably throw me off balance quite a bit (this comes with being hyper easily). So I’d rather not.
“If you could get busy and obtain said evidence, it seems to me that seeking answers from a skeptic such as myself would become unnecessary.”
There’s more to your blog than me wanting to come up with this evidence. You have a whole different way of thinking, which I can learn a number of things from. So, nope I don’t agree here with you.
"Provocative is about getting someone off-balance, mostly by being straight forward and targeting someone’s weaknesses with a specific purpose." ~ L
When I talk about religion on this blog, my "target" audience is mostly liberal/cultural Christians. Why? Because they are the ones who are (thankfully) smart enough to ignore the hurtful, useless, outdated verses found in the bible, and thus, they are more likely to "budge" and actually listen. In contrast, fundamentalist/bible-literalists are not likely to budge or listen. And it's not that I target the former's "weaknesses". No. What I target is Christianity's weaknesses. IOW, *there's a stark difference between targeting a person, and targeting a philosophy.
"Now let’s say, I’d return the favour, would you be okay with this? If so, no problem whatsoever."
I suppose that you could attempt to "return the favour" if you intend to target my arguments and/or philosophies(see here*). But if you attempt to target my person, depending on how I'm feeling at the time, I may put you in your place, or I may simply delete your posts. In either case, I can assure you that "we" won't have a problem.
"I appreciate the effort. It’s my way of saying 'thank you' for doing so."
As I said, I'm growing tired of it, so, I just hope you don't get used to it.
"Is it meant to address you? Not specifically. Is it meant to make sense of what you say? It most certainly is"
'Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'm inclined to believe that you slice 'n dice what I say, mainly, to focus on the parts with which you take issue, and you do it in the hopes that I'll read your sentiments over there. Note, I'm not saying that every post involves this process, but from what I can see, most do.
"But sometimes is does contain stuff I’d like you to know."
And yet, you post stuff on this blog that you'd like me to know, as well.
"There’s more to your blog than me wanting to come up with this evidence. You have a whole different way of thinking, which I can learn a number of things from. So, nope I don’t agree here with you."
If, hypothetically, we could fast-forward into the future and see that the test went in your favor..i.e...the "metaphysical" proven under scientific conditions, my "way of thinking" will have been turned on its head. 'No more need for said way of thinking. Again, this is why I just wish the back 'n forth could be kept to a minimum and that you could really get going on this.
“I'm inclined to believe that you slice 'n dice what I say, mainly, to focus on the parts with which you take issue…”
That should be correct, most certainly, since those parts are the essence/reason I start writing a post (if it’s about something to do with what you’ve said).
“…and you do it in the hopes that I'll read your sentiments over there.”
Not necessarily no. If/when I want you to read a specific blog post I('ll) let you know. All others posts are purely to make sense of things. I am aware however, that you read almost all my blog posts and as such I might leave a message in there for you. And even such messages are not written primarily for you to read, but they are written because I want to explain why I do certain things, since other people do ask me every once in a while why I do certain things. That’s why I might add something which might seem like a message to you, but in fact is up there for another reason.
“And yet, you post stuff on this blog that you'd like me to know, as well.”
I do not write everything down on your blog. If I write my own blog post first, it is to make sense to me first. Then I’ll either summarize it or I might write something else, both being the result of thinking things through.
“If, hypothetically, we could fast-forward into the future and see that the test went in your favor..i.e...the "metaphysical" proven under scientific conditions, my "way of thinking" will have been turned on its head. 'No more need for said way of thinking.”
There are still things having to do with “how to think”, instead of “what”. This shouldn’t change. Things like being “curious” or “confirmation bias” for instance, are valid ways of reasoning/looking at things, regardless of the outcome.
“Again, this is why I just wish the back 'n forth could be kept to a minimum and that you could really get going on this.”
Are you really this curious about the results? Seriously? I can hardly believe it. But you know, it’s such a complex project (with all the right variables having to be in place), that it will take a longer period of time. We’re not talking months here, it may even be years.
"We’re not talking months here, it may even be years."
Welp, I'm not inclined to keep this current system..i.e...back 'n forth, you run off and post, back 'n forth, you run off and post, etc., etc., going for much longer, never mind "months", and forget about "years". So, I suspect at some point I will just stop responding. 'Just telling you so you'll be prepared.
"That should be correct, most certainly, since those parts are the essence/reason I start writing a post (if it’s about something to do with what you’ve said)."
Except that there are a bazillion blogs dealing with skepticism/Atheism besides mine, and I venture to say, most of them would be happy to have you take issue with them, plus, you could find gaggles of subject matter to blog about. IOW, I don't "get" the attraction(obsession?) with me and this blog. As I said previously, I'm not particularly interested in being anyone's personal "support group" if they should fall away from [whatever], whether one of my posts contributed to that falling away, or not. I'm sorry if you feel I'm being crass(or annoying), but again, you are very persistent and not apt to take "no" for an answer.
"If/when I want you to read a specific blog post I('ll) let you know."
Nope, sorry. I'm not interested in doing things this way.
"All others posts are purely to make sense of things."
Yes, "make sense" of whatever I post here that you disagree with, which, 'best as I can tell, makes up about 90% of your blog.
"There are still things having to do with 'how to think', instead of 'what'. This shouldn’t change."
I don't have a monopoly on "how to think".
"Things like being 'curious' or 'confirmation bias' for instance, are valid ways of reasoning/looking at things, regardless of the outcome."
It seems to me that prior to encountering this blog, you weren't very "curious" as to if your metaphysical powers worked. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite. As for "confirmation bias" being a "valid" way to reason, I have no clue what you mean. But by the looks of things, you still don't know what it means.
"Are you really this curious about the results? Seriously?"
On a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most curious, I'm about at a 2. Mostly? I like to see this back 'n forth kept to a bare minimum, and evidently, it's going to be up to me to get it that way.
“Except that there are a bazillion blogs dealing with skepticism/Atheism besides mine, and I venture to say, most of them would be happy to have you take issue with them, plus, you could find gaggles of subject matter to blog about.”
I’m not the person, to just go join someone’s blog or go attend something new for that matter. That’s all. I’m very predictable when it comes to most habits. And I’m most certainly not going to expose myself to new stimuli anymore. Information is just fine, but if interaction is going to lead to being hyper, I’ll pass.
“IOW, I don't "get" the attraction (obsession?) with me and this blog.”
You got me to think about a lot of things, you still do, while (mostly?) keeping me from jumping all over the place, getting me to calm down again. To me it’s very valuable, more than you’ll ever know. Alas I’m aware it’s not the other way around. So I’ll go keep my distance.
“It seems to me that prior to encountering this blog, you weren't very "curious" as to if your metaphysical powers worked. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite.”
Before this blog, I thought I’d done enough tests already, proving things true. Now, I’m not that certain anymore, ‘cause I’ve come to understand part of my reasoning (evidence) might have been based on pure imagination.
“Yes, "make sense" of whatever I post here that you disagree with, which, 'best as I can tell, makes up about 90% of your blog.”
This blog, yes. Other ones, no.
“As for "confirmation bias" being a "valid" way to reason, I have no clue what you mean. But by the looks of things, you still don't know what it means.”
I’m very aware there’s my own way of looking at things (call it prejudicial) and there’s another way of looking at things, I most likely was to ignore. That last bit has changed. I’m aware it also takes the view of someone who sees things from an entirely different perspective (let’s call it the skeptic’s perspective) to see things for what they are truly worth. If this doesn’t add up with “confirmation bias”, then things have not properly explained either by you or on the net.
Today I got confronted with all these questions and hypotheses about life after death and also the assumption that we already know certain people, once we get to meet them in this life.
I cannot begin to tell you how confusing (frustrating?) it feels, to listen to others say so and then wonder... "Could it be true? Where's the evidence for this, if this were to be true?" Doubts...
Post a Comment