The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "Dr." Sebi... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2485 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
Many illnesses are caused, or at least exacerbated by stress. The Placebo effect does little more than reduce stress. Reducing stress can cure some illnesses or at least lessen their effects.

Daniel Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, (1887) initially told people he could heal deafness. He could not, except for a very rare version cause by nerve impingement, which was supposedly his first case/cure. When the deaf came to him and he failed to restore their hearing, they told him their other ailments vanished. He then advertised that he could cure anything. He could not do that either, but people kept coming because it helped them feel better, even it it did not cure their real chronic problems. What kind of man was Palmer? Well, his son's best friend was P.T. Barnum. I think that says it all don't you?

Point is if you believe you will eel better, you will feel better. Not cured, but feel better. Having a good attitude helps you heal as any M.D. will assure you.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
I’m not sure what that does for your argument.


That is possibly because you have no idea what my “argument” is. You assume you do, but most likely you don’t, or you would have already corrected yourself and been on your way. (I’m not completely ruling out that you do, in fact, know what my point is but are acting ignorant because you enjoy the sport of the clash.)

Quote:
...explain to me why I should reject the fact that psychic phenomena has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mainstream scientific community.

Simple, I will give it a shot when you point out where I said you should.

Quote:
I pointed out that some uneducated guy used a method of going into a “trance” and throwing out all sorts of proclamations/predictions (including Atlantean death rays, etc.), and here you are saying that that is very much like the current model used by corporate medicine today. Are you even listening to yourself???
Yes, I am listening to myself. You are either purposefully being misleading of what you ACTUALLY said, or you are just that forgetful of what you ACTUALLY said in specific to diagnosis. Here is what you ACTUALLY said:

Quote:
As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the standard psychic technique of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

I don’t see him PRESCRIBING death rays as a cure, or DIAGNOSING someone with death ray syndrome or death ray eyes. So please stay on topic. The outlandish predictions he made about things outside of medicine are of no bearing on my statement about the basic method you say was employed by him then, and modern corporate medicine now.
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2551 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
...OR, you could make the neutral assertion that I have failed to meet the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim. I believe Ron is claiming the latter.

It is neutral in the sense that it makes no counter claim that psychic phenomena does NOT exist.


Then clearly you missed this:

Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
...IS the evidence (so far anyway) that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.


Ron’s is NOT a neutral claim.


No, I didn't miss this. The point is that psychic phenomena has been studied and what evidence does exist points to the conclusion that it isn't real. That doesn't mean denying the possibilities. But if no one is claiming psychic phenomena exists then it seems like much ado about nothing. Just idle pedantry.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
No, I didn't miss this. The point is that psychic phenomena has been studied and what evidence does exist points to the conclusion that it isn't real... Just idle pedantry.

Ah, well then that makes two who appear to truly not understand science... or possibly just repeatedly careless with their words.

Then again, maybe you just mistyped based on the need for “defense of science”.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16042 Posts

Profile of tommy
What does evidence of something that isn't real, look like?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2485 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, tommy wrote:
What does evidence of something that isn't real, look like?


That one is easy Tommy. When someone cannot present scientific evidence because something is either not real, or the result is fabricated or wishful thinking, the presented evidence is anecdotal. That is, believe this because here is this person's account followed by that person's account, etc. The people in question may have experienced what they say they did. They may well believe in what they are saying and not looking to con or mislead anyone, but it is still not proof.

I forget which comedian it was who wondered why professors with Ph.D.'s never get abducted by aliens.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, tommy wrote:
What does evidence of something that isn't real, look like?

It looks like a Coelacanth.
It looks like Eriogonum truncatumis.
It looks like Dryococelus australis.
It looks like the New Zealand Storm Petrel.

Albeit, technically these were just thought extinct, some for hundreds of years, but the point is they were incorrectly presumed extinct by those making assumptions.

So to be more pedantic... we now have a “picture” of a black hole. Or more precisely as I understand it, we have a picture of an event horizon.
Steven Keyl
View Profile
Inner circle
Washington, D.C.
2551 Posts

Profile of Steven Keyl
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
No, I didn't miss this. The point is that psychic phenomena has been studied and what evidence does exist points to the conclusion that it isn't real... Just idle pedantry.

Ah, well then that makes two who appear to truly not understand science... or possibly just repeatedly careless with their words.

Then again, maybe you just mistyped based on the need for “defense of science”.


I agree wholeheartedly that the understanding of science seems to be sorely lacking in certain corners of the Café. Wishing you well, Tom. And a speedy recovery.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!

Come visit Magic Book Report.com!

"If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
The Placebo effect does little more than reduce stress. Reducing stress can cure some illnesses or at least lessen their effects.

This is great news for the scientific community. I’d like to read more about this finding. Do you have scientific papers which explain the testing behind this?
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly that the understanding of science seems to be sorely lacking in certain corners of the Café. Wishing you well, Tom. And a speedy recovery.


Well played. Smile Smile Smile
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
197 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

In this example, it’s simply the default position that there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

Why is that the default position?

Has there has been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration that psychic phenomena don't exist?

It seems to me that you can use the same reasoning that you just presented to justify the opposite null hypothesis.


Because it's a position of neutrality.

It's isn't neutral. Neutral would be, "it might exist and it might not exist."


“there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Sounds a lot like "it might exist and it might not exist” to me. It’s certainly not a statement that psychic phenomena is not/cannot be real. I’m just saying that it has yet to be demonstrated.

Anyway, all this can be put to bed simply by believers providing the proof.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
197 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
I’m not sure what that does for your argument.


That is possibly because you have no idea what my “argument” is. You assume you do, but most likely you don’t, or you would have already corrected yourself and been on your way. (I’m not completely ruling out that you do, in fact, know what my point is but are acting ignorant because you enjoy the sport of the clash.)

Quote:
...explain to me why I should reject the fact that psychic phenomena has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mainstream scientific community.

Simple, I will give it a shot when you point out where I said you should.

Quote:
I pointed out that some uneducated guy used a method of going into a “trance” and throwing out all sorts of proclamations/predictions (including Atlantean death rays, etc.), and here you are saying that that is very much like the current model used by corporate medicine today. Are you even listening to yourself???
Yes, I am listening to myself. You are either purposefully being misleading of what you ACTUALLY said, or you are just that forgetful of what you ACTUALLY said in specific to diagnosis. Here is what you ACTUALLY said:

Quote:
As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the standard psychic technique of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

I don’t see him PRESCRIBING death rays as a cure, or DIAGNOSING someone with death ray syndrome or death ray eyes. So please stay on topic. The outlandish predictions he made about things outside of medicine are of no bearing on my statement about the basic method you say was employed by him then, and modern corporate medicine now.


Your emotional ramblings aside, it is YOU who claimed the following in your attempt to “fix” my post:

As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

Do you deny that you are equating Cayce’s method with that of modern medicine?

And still unanswered: Anyway, would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
197 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, tommy wrote:
What does evidence of something that isn't real, look like?

It looks like a Coelacanth.
It looks like Eriogonum truncatumis.
It looks like Dryococelus australis.
It looks like the New Zealand Storm Petrel.

Albeit, technically these were just thought extinct, some for hundreds of years, but the point is they were incorrectly presumed extinct by those making assumptions.

So to be more pedantic... we now have a “picture” of a black hole. Or more precisely as I understand it, we have a picture of an event horizon.


If you’re taking a shot at science (and it appears that you like to do that), then just remember – the only thing that fixes bad science is more/better science.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
197 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
No, I didn't miss this. The point is that psychic phenomena has been studied and what evidence does exist points to the conclusion that it isn't real... Just idle pedantry.

Ah, well then that makes two who appear to truly not understand science... or possibly just repeatedly careless with their words.

Then again, maybe you just mistyped based on the need for “defense of science”.


Sadly, science does need defending these days. The rise of anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, psychic charlatans etc. is an unfortunate consequence of science illiteracy. Or just willful ignorance in some cases.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

In this example, it’s simply the default position that there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

Why is that the default position?

Has there has been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration that psychic phenomena don't exist?

It seems to me that you can use the same reasoning that you just presented to justify the opposite null hypothesis.


Because it's a position of neutrality.

It's isn't neutral. Neutral would be, "it might exist and it might not exist."


“there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.”

Sounds a lot like "it might exist and it might not exist” to me. It’s certainly not a statement that psychic phenomena is not/cannot be real. I’m just saying that it has yet to be demonstrated.

Anyway, all this can be put to bed simply by believers providing the proof.

Ron

It sounds that way to me, too.

But, of course, that isn’t the point of this discussion, and you know it.

The point of this discussion is whether what you acknowledged as the null hypothesis – namely, that psychic phenomena do not exist – is neutral or not.

It isn't.

Quote:
On Apr 17, 2019, R.S. wrote:
Anyway, all this can be put to bed simply by believers providing the proof.

That won’t put to bed the issue of you making an assumption about what is the null hypothesis.

And note, too, that it can also be put to bed simply by scientists providing proof that psychic phenomena do not exist.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2019, R.S. wrote:
... it is YOU who claimed the following in your attempt to “fix” my post:

As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

Do you deny that you are equating Cayce’s method with that of modern medicine?


No, why would I deny it? Now that you have clearly indicated you know EXACTLY what I posted, do you deny that your ramblings about death rays and such have NOTHING to do with what I posted? Now that you have clearly indicated you know EXACTLY what I posted, do you deny that your ramblings about ancient medical practices and such have NOTHING to do with what I posted?

Quote:
And still unanswered: Anyway, would you rather be treated by someone like Cayce or by a modern science-based MD?

Unanswered because it has no bearing on the discussion. You might as well be asking if I prefer sushi or sashimi. It has NOTHING to do with the discussion.

Here is why this will not be “put to rest” by any form of science discovering the proof that psychic phenomenon exists.

Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
And the absence of replicable, significant, and unambiguous evidence for psychic phenomena after decades of investigation IS the evidence (so far anyway) that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.
Ron


Statements like this show a clear misunderstanding of what science can and can not do. Experimentation never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe,"
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2019, R.S. wrote:

If you’re taking a shot at science (and it appears that you like to do that), then just remember – the only thing that fixes bad science is more/better science.

Ron

What you have failed to understand is this isn’t “a shot at science”. It is an exposure of how those who don’t respect the limitations of science corrupt it by making claims which science itself cannot support. And yes, obviously, some of those who do this are “science defenders”.

The only thing which can fix that is better education about what science is and does. So to be perfectly clear, an experiment never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe,"
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2485 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
The Placebo effect does little more than reduce stress. Reducing stress can cure some illnesses or at least lessen their effects.

This is great news for the scientific community. I’d like to read more about this finding. Do you have scientific papers which explain the testing behind this?


Hi Tom,

I think there are probably literally hundreds of articles about the placebo effect. Here is a fairly recent one to get you started should you care to pursue the topic.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-he......o-effect
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5815 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2019, Cliffg37 wrote:
The Placebo effect does little more than reduce stress. Reducing stress can cure some illnesses or at least lessen their effects.

This is great news for the scientific community. I’d like to read more about this finding. Do you have scientific papers which explain the testing behind this?


Hi Tom,

I think there are probably literally hundreds of articles about the placebo effect. Here is a fairly recent one to get you started should you care to pursue the topic.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-he......o-effect

Thanks, Cliff. I have read several articles on the subject now. Some very interesting stuff, including the one where the participants were told it was just a placebo and it still had an effect. None of the articles I have read, however, mention stress. They talk about the many things which the placebo effect appears to do, but reducing stress has not been mentioned. Do you have a link to the source for the stress finding?
Cliffg37
View Profile
Inner circle
Long Beach, CA
2485 Posts

Profile of Cliffg37
Sadly Tom, while there are literally thousands of articles on this topic, they largely fall into two types. New age fluff, that is non scientific articles, and medical journals that are both boring, and hard to read to those not of a scientific mind.

Try this one which is fairly easy to read, and the conclusion directly addresses the topic at hand here. Skip right to the "conclusion" first, and read the rest of the article if you choose.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow......type=pdf

Also, I consider the health science journal to be reputable and unlikely to print unverified ideas.
Magic is like Science,
Both are fun if you do it right!
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » "Dr." Sebi... » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.31 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL