text:
On Feb 26, 7:11 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{[email][remove]>
wrote:

No, it's not, Tang. Your "it's all fluff" simply blurs distinctions.
Some things aren't placebo, and actually kill bacteria; some surgery
actually removes the tumor or inflamed appendix, etc., and saves the
patients' life.

You can only talk about this if you compare it to a disingenuous or
pretentious smile. Otherwise, you can say "it's all fluff" and not
discern between genuine smiles and childish smirks.

That's a metaphor, not something literal.

You express symbols, the other person takes the symbols and processes
them, and if the symbols have the same meaning to both of you (that
is, they are both grounded in similar experiences), then the person
assesses the thought. They also compare the thought to their stored
body of information, and only will accept it if it is consistant with
that body. Otherwise they will reject it.

Well, that happens when the thought relates to experiences which evoke
awe. And like you, I'm all for that, when it's appropriate.

Btw, sometimes we want to be mechanical, such as wehn driving, tying
shoes, etc., so that we don't have to expend conscious effort for
these things. It's when we designate too much of life to such
mechanical subroutines that we live in a trance, daydreaming, which is
where mindfulness is helpful. The art of life is to use the mechanical
subroutines for some things, but not all the time, and allow us to
experience awe when it is appropriate, which is more often than we
usually experience it. That's how I see it.

Anyway, you reminded me of an article I heard this week on NPR about
beliefs, and how we mechanically tend to accept or reject them
depending upon our conditioned worldview, when we compare them to our
set of assumed knowledge and opinions. This relates to all the "hot
topics", like factory-farm animals I wrote of in other threads, or
health care, etc. It's something that is common sense, that we all
know, but it's nicely articulated, with some interesting principles,
such as "The Messenger Effect". Here's the transcript of the 4-minute
story.

--DharmaTroll

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307

<<<<Transcript

All Things Considered

Belief In Climate Change Hinges On Worldview
by Christopher Joyce

February 23, 2010

When it comes to climate change, some look at the facts presented and
see a coming catastrophe, others see a hoax. This difference in
interpretation, social scientists say, has more to do with each
individual's existing outlook than the facts.

February 23, 2010

Over the past few months, polls show that fewer Americans say they
believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite a
raft of scientific reports that say otherwise.

This puzzles many climate scientists — but not some social scientists,
whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one's
beliefs.

Take, for example, a recent debate about climate change on West
Virginia public radio.

"It's a hoax," said coal company CEO Don Blankenship, "because clearly
anyone that says that they know what the temperature of the Earth is
going to be in 2020 or 2030 needs to be put in an asylum because they
don't."

On the other side of the debate was environmentalist Robert Kennedy,
Jr.

"Ninety-eight percent of the research climatologists in the world say
that global warming is real, that its impacts are going to be
catastrophic," he argued. "There are 2 percent who disagree with that.
I have a choice of believing the 98 percent or the 2 percent."

Individualists And Communitarians

To social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, it's not surprising that
two people can disagree so strongly over science. Braman is on the
faculty at George Washington University and part of The Cultural
Cognition Project, a group of scholars who study how cultural values
shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.

"People tend to conform their factual beliefs to ones that are
consistent with their cultural outlook, their world view," Braman
says.

The Cultural Cognition Project has conducted several experiments to
back that up.

Participants in these experiments are asked to describe their cultural
beliefs. Some embrace new technology, authority and free enterprise.
They are labeled the "individualistic" group. Others are suspicious of
authority or of commerce and industry. Braman calls them
"communitarians."

In one experiment, Braman queried these subjects about something
unfamiliar to them: nanotechnology — new research into tiny, molecule-
sized objects that could lead to novel products.

"These two groups start to polarize as soon as you start to describe
some of the potential benefits and harms," Braman says.

The individualists tended to like nanotechnology. The communitarians
generally viewed it as dangerous. Both groups made their decisions
based on the same information.

"It doesn't matter whether you show them negative or positive
information, they reject the information that is contrary to what they
would like to believe, and they glom onto the positive information,"
Braman says.

Rejecting Information That Threatens Beliefs

So, what's going on here?

"Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to
information is that the implications of it threaten their values,"
says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The
Cultural Cognition Project.

Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view
of how the world should work.

"If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think
about it in a much more open-minded way," he says.

And if the information doesn't, you tend to reject it.

In another experiment, people read a United Nations study about the
dangers of global warming. Then the researchers told the participants
that the solution to global warming is to regulate industrial
pollution. Many in the individualistic group then rejected the climate
science. But when more nuclear power was offered as the solution, says
Braman, "they said, you know, it turns out global warming is a serious
problem."

And for the communitarians, climate danger seemed less serious if the
only solution was more nuclear power.

The 'Messenger' Effect

Then there's the "messenger" effect. In an experiment dealing with the
dangers versus benefits of a vaccine, the scientific information came
from several people. They ranged from a rumpled and bearded expert to
a crisply business-like one. The participants tended to believe the
message that came from the person they considered to be more like
them.

In relation to the climate change debate, this suggests that some
people may not listen to those whom they view as hard-core
environmentalists.

"If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change,"
Braman says, "you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them
at this point."

So, should climate scientists hire, say, Newt Gingrich as their
spokesman? Kahan says no.

"The goal can't be to create a kind of psychological house of mirrors
so that people end up seeing exactly what you want," he argues. "The
goal has to be to create an environment that allows them to be open-
minded."

And Kahan says you can't do that just by publishing more scientific
data.>>


author: DharmaTroll

subject:
Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the
	Pantyry)

text:
On Feb 26, 6:34 pm, "Evelyn" <[email]> wrote:

I'm happy that your foot is better, Evelyn. And your story is
bullshit.

Here's why. I also have a friend, a NASA rocket scientist in my
neighborhood, who had plantar fasciitis. He also had it for a long
time. He had been a runner, and he couldn't run for months and months.
Then, he didn't go to any Reiki woo-woo-ist or anyone else. But it
finally went away! He can now run again! His story is the same as
yours, Evelyn, except he didn't happen to go to a woo-woo-ist right
before it went away.

This is exactly why woo-woo pseudoscientists hate controlled studies,
because they expose the horrible flaw in reasoning in stories like
Evelyn's. Evelyn, you have committed the sin of Post hoc ergo propter
hoc! That because A happened and then B happened, you assume that A
must have caused or had something to do with B.

We at absfg can only thank our lucky stars that poor Evelyn hadn't
invited the born-again Revrund Ben Dover over, instead of the Reiki
woo-woo-ist Miss Tickle, or else poor post-hoc Evelyn would now
probably be praising Jesus and campaigning for Sarah Palin!

What the pseudoscience woo-woo-ists do is collect these emotionally
compelling post hoc ergo propter hoc stories like Evelyn's, known as
anecdotes, and then they ignore all the cases like my neighbor's, as
well as all the cases that the reiki woo-woo-ist failed to heal. Then
you repeat all the true stories over and over. The stories are true,
in that after the woo-woo the condition went away; but the inference
that the woo-woo is the cause is completely unjustified, however, the
cherry-picking Evelyns believe it.

That's how the television evangelists become millionaires, because if
you have an audience large enough, you will pass a mathematical
threshold where statistically you'll have a case like Evelyn's every
week, where after watching the show and being blessed, they are
healed. And like Evelyn they make a post hoc ergo propter hoc error
and then call in with their testimony about their miracle and Jesus,
and of course their credit card number. Praise Jesus!

Evelyn,: shame on you for being so gullible, for using "astrology
rules" of cherry-picking hits, in this case a single hit, and making
an inference that is unwarranted. At least don't commit the double sin
of then accusing those of us of "scientism" who actually pay attention
wisely and look at studies with control groups and placebos, like the
acupuncture studies using sham acupuncture, which reveals that
acupuncture went a whopping 0 for 13, failing in every study to do
better than sham acupuncture.

And shame on you, Robert and Kitty, for promoting and encouraging such
nonsense. As for you, Nutter-d00d Keynes, you are beyond shame, when
you lie to gullible nice blonds like Ev and Kitty and tell them, "I
demand that all my witch doctors have rattles and smoke, feathers and
bones in their noses, because that's what works." Because that's not
what works, Nutter-d00d: that's what the gullible folks remember those
times when it is followed by healing. They don't remember when the
rattles and smoke are followed by more pain. (This is the well
documented phenomenon called Confirmation Bias, btw, and it's why
there's a horoscope in every newspaper, despite all astrology being
completely debunked a hundred times over.) Then the Revrund Ben Dover
just says, "The Lord works in Mysterious Ways, Sister -- have faith,
pray with me, and write a bigger check to my ministry, for the Lord
Shall Provide! Hallelujah! Amen!"

--DharmaTroll


text:
On Feb 27, 6:42 am, "Evelyn" <[email]> wrote:
Evelyn:

Bingo.

Yes, there are, and you're easy prey for them, Ev.

On Feb 27, 6:40 am, "Evelyn" <[email]> wrote:

Into the endzone for the winning touchdown, I would hope.

Sure you do. You suggest it's a placebo below.
How THAT works is much more interesting.

Again, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

This again could have been right after my hypothetical preacher-dude,
Rev'rund Ben Dover, cast out the Devil, and prayed to Jesus. You'd be
saying the same thing about him.

Sometimes, it makes sense to draw conclusions, such as when you get
sick and vomit -- what some folks mis-describe as as "stomach flu"
that comes and goes quickly -- retch or shit, then relief -- for then
you have very good reason to attribute your illness to one of the 75
million annual cases of food poisoning in the U.S., (and this is tied
to all that factory farming that I discussed in other threads). You
can look back at what you ate and maybe deduce the culprit (probably
chicken or pork you ate not cooked properly or something with
mayonnaise gone bad and now containing staph toxin).

However, when illness *ends* and you become *well*, drawing
conclusions is very, very dubious. Deducing why you suddenly get well
is a much different case than deducing why you suddenly get sick, you
see, because, unless it is fatal, you always get well! And
statistically there is always a significant percentage of spontaneous
healing with every ailment, even terminal ones like cancer -- our
bodies have built-in healing mechanisms. We wrongly tend to use the
same logical steps that we use to deduce the source of common food
poisoning to deduce causes of healing. As I said, this mistake
provides the livelihoods of countless faith-healers and woo-woo-ists,
who take credit for what your body does naturally. Doctors make tons
of money on this effect as well, as does big pharma, btw, though I
don't want to discourage you from having a real medical professional
check you out when you are ill.

Well, sure it was, but I want to point out the mistaken inference you
made, and how deducing the cause of wellness is nothing like deducing
the cause of sudden illness, such as common food poisoning.

Right. We agree completely here. So at this point, rationally, you
should be compelled to be completely agnostic and say "I don't know",
and then perhaps simply note that there happened to be a conjunction
between some particular woo-woo and your subsequently feeling better.
(If you go to a massage therapist or chiropractor and they massage and
crack your back and then your back pain goes away, btw, then you do
have strong evidence that "it worked", but you do not with woo-woo
practices that don't have a direct physical action on the affected
body part, especially when they don't touch you at all.) That still
might be good enough reason to want to perform a controlled study (if
only to once and for all demonstrate that it's no better than
placebo).

Finding others with similar experience would NOT be evidence, btw, as
with a large enough pool of people (especially with the internet)
there will always be countless hits -- what counts is the ratio of
hits to misses, which might expose the woo-woo claim as false if you
see that that ratio isn't any higher than you would expect to heal
spontaneously.

Anyway, after that fit of rationality and intelligence above, you add:

*Sigh*  No, Evelyn, there is no evidence of that. All that happened is
that you got better, and before you got better, some woo-woo-ist
performed a magic spell. Doesn't mean that the spell "worked", dammit!
(The wonderful film "The Go-Between" is a great example of this --
Netflix it if you haven't, I highly recommend it.)

Hey, I haven't advocated for legally restraining people from doing
what they want to do. Indeed, I'm very upset that it's illegal for me
to smoke pot in my own living room. I've definitely for the government
to get out of our lives. However, I'm also for having sham
pseudoscience exposed for what it is, and labeled as such, so that
folks like you won't be so easily duped.

That's "for whom"

And again, it doesn't "work". Rather, the quack casts the spell,
shakes the rattle, or places her hand over you, followed by your
becoming healthy. There is no evidence of any causal connection, just
hucksters taking credit for what's going to happen anyway.

Please don't insult me with condescending questions.
I already have Keynes, Bill Pfft, and Tang's yipping minions for that.

MY POINT EXACTLY!

Repeating what I wrote before:

Finding others with similar experience would NOT be evidence, btw, as
with a large enough pool of people (especially with the internet)
there will always be countless hits -- what counts is the ratio of
hits to misses, which might expose the woo-woo claim as false if you
see that that ratio isn't any higher than you would expect to heal
spontaneously.

Millions and millions of folks are duped by post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacies! That's why we have horoscopes in every newspaper, more than
science articles. That's why there are faith healers asking for money
on Sunday mornings on multiple cable channels. That's why there are
quacks out their babbling about reiki and crystal healing and magnet
healing, and 'energy work' and 'aura cleansing'. That's why there are
so many people in religious cults. Of course they all swear by woo-
woo. They use the same fallacious reasoning that you do. And they are
all wrong.

And because of all this quackery, and the kind of paranoid,
unjustified hatred that Keynes and all the quacks peddle about real
health professionals, they often don't get the medical help they need,
and they die.

Well, that's reassuring to hear.
And it's the most sensible thing you've said today.

No, because the one person in a hundred or whatever who goes to the
healer or the great pyramid chamber whose cancer spontaneously goes in
remission -- that's the story that's going to be told and spread
throughout the woo-woo world, you see. The one case where two people
are born on the same day and become brain surgeons is going to be
told, and not the stories of all the others born that day who become
janitors, farmers, or lawyers. All the cases that you just mentioned
will be ignored by the nutters. Or explained away (e.g., "they were
lacking faith"). All pseudoscience uses that "confirmation bias"
methodology employed by astrology.

Wow, your conditioned intuitions are really overpowering, Ev.
The reptile part of your brain just won't be convinced by reason!
Again, 'A' happened, and then 'B' happened. That's all you know.

I have no problem with that, but I will suggest a sacred, magic mantra
for you to repeat, which may just cure you of your acute case of
delusion, Ev:
"Correlation Is Not Causation".

Just keep repeating that mantra until it 'clicks'.

Thus I have spoken.

--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa


author: Tang Huyen

subject:
Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the
 Pantyry)

text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

<<My sense is that the word "enlighten" is a poor
word for that. More like that a genuine smile
(rather than a phony smile like those of the
est-holes, etc.) inspires someone to open up and
be a little more authentic and less mechanical. So
I suggest the word "inspire" or inspiration" instead
of "enlighten" or "enlightenment". I don't even like
using "enlightened" to talk about Sid. I prefer
"awakened" as we literally go around
daydreaming most of the time, so "awakened"
makes more sense for me than turning on a bright
light. (And note that it's actually when the sun
goes down that we get to see the awesomeness
of the stars and heavens.)>>

It's all placebo and woo there, dear: genuine smile,
inspiration (literally: blowing a thought into
somebody's mind), to open up and be a little more
authentic and less mechanical, the awesomeness
of the stars and heavens, etc.

Welcome to the club.

Tang Huyen


text:
On Feb 25, 1:28 am, Keynes <[email]> wrote:

I'm sure that, like me, Fu does object to bogus official drugs and
therapy. The problem is that pseudoscience like acupuncture, reiki,
reflexology, magnet and crystal healing, and so on and so forth, are
all entirely bullshit, driven only by placebo. Whereas official drugs
and therapy go through rigorous testing and trials, which all the
pseudoscience stuff fails. Even so, some of it is bullshit and bogas.
But most of it isn't. Drugs and surgery have saved the lives of
countless folks and are amazingly effective. Yes, there are some
problems and yes, folks are over-medicated, and yes, anti-depressants
and other drugs are given to folks for whom they aren't effective;
nonetheless, the millions of people who are helped and cured, by real
medicine and therapy more effective that placebo are the majority, not
the exception. So it makes sense to focus on the bullshit and
bullshitters who eschew controlled studies and rationality and label
it as "scientism", rather than try to ignore the brilliant success of
science and legitimate medicine by only focusing on the minority of
its failures.

--DharmaTroll


text:
On Feb 25, 8:46 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

The ditsy blonde seduced by the Nutter-d00d? Heh.

Oh, balderdash with your "modalities" and "synapsing". The point is
that people pay to be duped by placebos like acupuncture or crystal
healing or reiki or whatever, and when the flim-flam is attributed to
woo-woo like "meridians" or "chi" or "vital energies", and people are
led, like Nutter-d00d, to irrationally fear real doctors and medicine,
then they go to the woo-woo-ists instead of getting real help, and
they are more likely not to get the real medical treatment they need.

That's the gist of it. Now I don't have time to go into more detail
about this, for, as you can see, my superhero abilities are being
maxxed out on the factory-farm animal welfare threads, and that is
monopolizing my posting time today. But I'll get back to dealing with
your flim-flammery at some point.

--DharmaTroll


author: Déjà Fu

subject: Re: Ass Burgers, cont. Discernment vs. discrimination

text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

"hypothesis" is the correct term.

I remember that manual. It was right next to the cookbook section.

That's Sveedish for "pancakes" and "meatballs", respectively.

You actually have to be able to read this shit. FEX, "number
needed to treat" means nothing to almost everybody.

Whoops - even this person missed the 50% placebo success rate
and the fact that it supports all the previous large studies
of needle-noodling.

Clever lil' fukkers, them California Phischiatrists

I'm always amazed when I reach conclusions through my own
analysis that has nothing to do with the media or anybody else.
Must have been my HS education (which is no longer available).

This "study", though, wasn't particularly aimed at showing
that acupuncture was better than physical placebo (it wasn't)
  - it was aimed at creating a new genre of "specialized"
acupuncture and a new money-making (specialized knowledge)
racket within that branch of woo. It wouldn't surprise me
that it could still leverage that and such special application
will be widely claimed (with the appropriate "education"
and "certification", of course).

RM, PhD is a disgrace even to her pseudo-profession (psychiatry),
which is already as disgraceful a pursuit as theology.


author: Hollywood Lee

text:
On 3/2/2010 9:14 AM, DharmaTroll wrote:

As long as you don't find yourself in a bathrobe, beer in hand, yelling
at the kids to get off the lawn, you should be ok.


author: Keynes

text:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:14:17 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

Yep. Asshole confesses again.


text:
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:

           <accupuke:climatology::FSM:Islam>

True. Happily, with some education and training we can read their work.
As of 2009, three large-scale studies have shown that acupuncture and
sham acupuncture (placebo) have clinically insignificant differences:

Brinkhaus B., Witt CM, Jena S, Linde K, Streng A, Wagenpfeil S, Irnich
D, Walther HU, Melchart D, Willich SN. Acupuncture in patients with
chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med.
2006;166:450-457.

Linde K, Streng A, Jurgens S, Hoppe A, Brinkhaus B, Witt C, Wagenpfeil
S, Pfaffenrath V, Hammes MG, Weidenhammer W, Willich SN, Melchart D.
Acupuncture for patients with migraine: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA 2005;293:2118-2125.

Melchart D, Streng A, Hoppe A, Brinkhaus B, Witt C,Wagenpfeil S,
Pfaffenrath V, Hammes M, Hummelsberger J, Irnich D, Weidenhammer W,
Willich SN, Linde K. Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache:
randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2005;331:376-382.

There are no studies (nor should there be) of "surgical acupuncture"
available in any of the medical literature to which I have access,
but there seem to be a lot of anecdotal claims made for post-surgical
use of it.

Unsurprisingly, the only clinical trial study funded recently
on the efficacy of post-surgical acupuncture:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00260494
seems to have been abandoned.

As someone mentioned last summer, "There are careers, large amounts
of money, prestige, and national pride at stake here...". He was
referring to NIH's utterly failed "CAM" efforts, set up by the Bush-era
Wooists, the Power of Prayer People and the like. Not to mention the
billions of dollars in the unregulated market for such woo.

HH, Dr. HH wrote a lovely account of acupuncture a few years ago:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-10-08#feature
And, in case you don't read the fine print, linked to a still-available
.ppt presentaion at
http://drspinello.com/altmed/acuvet/acuvet_files/frame.htm
It's a hoot, really! Cow-puncture, dog-puncture, camel-puncture!

If you come across any current (say, last decade) studies that
confirm acupuncture (accupressure, tire pressure, bone-cracking,
et al) efficacy vs a placebo equivalent, feel free to woo us.

Oh, btw, a team of Chinese musicians is using GPS to map the
Qi meridians of glaciers in order to pin down AGW once and
for all. You'll find the story in the news media - the American
Source of Knowledge.


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

It was "blind" to a certain extent...

"I'm blinded by the light
of god and truth and right
and I wander in the night
without direction."
-- Saint Simon

Just imagine how well the Sveedish Massage Therapists
mighta made out if they had breakout sessions over a few
beers every week or so with the depressed "I couldn't get
an abortion because it's illegal" ladies...


text:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:03:04 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

What?  What?
A scientific study by scientists in a university can be FLAWED?
Who knew?


subject: Re: Ass Burgers, cont. Discernment vs. discrimination (was: Re:  Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the Pantyry)

text:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:22:43 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

If we take you at your word, you are quite an asshole.
You delight in it.  It's not an act. You say so yourself.
Everyone gets it but you. So you are a naked fool here.
The more vigorously you protest, the more obvious
it becomes.

No one has called for 'divine intervention' or any of the
other boogie men in your own mind that you accuse
everybody else of so voluminously. Why can't you
see yourself? Your ego just can't afford to look.

You constantly appeal to 'science' disregarding the fact
that it is written by scientists as fallible even as you are.
Great faith there, and great determination to preserve it
at all costs - straw men, misdirection, faulty reasoning,
misquotation, snipping, sniping, character assassination,
and whatever else you have to do to keep a good opinion
of yourself, which you can only do by destroying any
'enemies' who may disagree with you in any way.

Charm is bursting out all over you, asshole.

Grow up.


text:
Here's the thing, DT.  In your intentional, bombastic (and often funny)
stylings and rhetoric, you often overstate your case, such that it is
easy to confuse (a) your attack on the *thought or other process* by
which people claim knowledge of some dogmatic or other claim, and (b) an
attack or attempted refutation of the actual truth of the underlying claim.

The latter effort, if undertaken with respect to the traditional
dogmatic sorts of claims (the net of views in Buddhism), would
rightfully result in you being labeled a fundamentalist, IMO.  God, no
God?  World with beginning point or without?  Setting them aside as
diversionary seems to be a reasonable approach.

On 3/2/2010 8:22 AM, DharmaTroll wrote:


author: halfawake

subject:
Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the
  Pantyry)

text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

So what?  There are spontaneous remissions and there are both
traditional and alternative cures.  Each single instance of any occurs
within a discrete set of circumstances which can be looked at for
context and probabilities and not necessarily made best sense of by
being denuded in a general study which only takes statistical
significane of the conglomerate into account.  It's important to have
such studies, but they are used to dismiss experience and true anecdotal
evidence, which is something, not nothing.

To claim that the chances of an actual treatment working is just as
arbitrary as sneezing at the right time and resetting the foot muscles,
is to dismiss it entirely.  Reiki has a tradition which includes a
general sense of cure rate, and if one bothered to study it in situ, one
would get a real surmise of how effective it is over the larger range of
instances.  But the medical community is generally shy of spending time
and money on such studies, and if proposed, it would probably not be
funded as it is already in the 'wacko' category.

Yes, it reflects my annoyance with the prevailing closed-minded attitude
that will stretch to any length to propose alternative theories for
anything positive that *does* happen in the alternative community.  You
deserve it.  You're prejudiced and pronounce judgment in your own skewed
direction, and I'm sick and tired of it.

   You've

No, you're labelling me right now, calling me a believer and I'm fed up.
  I question *believers,* not non-believers.  Christian fundies are
believers and so are you.  I don't blindly believe every claim I hear if
it's the right brand, but when something does occur I look at it.  I'm
not an anti-science nut-case, I believe in science, it's just not the
limit of my understanding.  And I don't disempower my ability to
observe, which is a hallmark of science, in favor of a statistic.

   probably

yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, assume and condescend away.

   as it's a common way

I don't do that.  It doesn't prevent your prejudices from causing you to
name-call, make presumptions, apologize for the gaps in medical
accuracy, and assume that anything that an alternative does is phoney.
It sucks.  I'm not the believer, you are.

Bullshit.  And your neighbor has nothing to do with what happened to
Evelyn and millions of other people who had effective treatments, and
millions of others who did not.  You are making the connection. That's
where it exists, to prove your point, when you really have no idea what
happened and don't care.

   My neighbor says, "I don't know

Her experience is not dependent on a study, though such a study would be
valuble if set up correctly.  The trouble with healing techniques and
the placebo effect is that they are already admittedly similar, since
the placebo effect is itself a form of mind-body healing.  Think about
that, please.

Well if a doctor gave me aspirin and my headache went away, you would
NOT be saying it was "probably a coincidence," even though the cultural
belief in aspirin could well create a powerful social placebo effect.
Ever think about that?  When I had a number of a people in a row have
their headaches go away after doing hands-on healing work, would you
give that as much credence as the aspirin?

I do believe in anecdotal evidence, just as I believe it when someone
tells me why someone is a good doctor or dentist.  It's a large part of
how *real* information is disseminated, outside of the approved studies
which are very selective.  Anecdotal evidence is real experience in the
real world, not "controlled" by the powers that be.  That has its
advantages and its down sides. You talk about controlled studies like
they are your god, and indeed they are.  You don't question them or see
that there are gaps in what they cover and how they are put together.

   You believe it so much that to lower cognitive dissonance

You are rigid and you only see the light where your flashlight is
pointing.  There's some light there, but there's light elsewhere too,
which you ignore.

   This is really just a more sophisticated version of

NO IT'S NOT. DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH BILL AND DON'T ATTRIBUTE WHAT HE
SAYS TO ME. That is what makes me sick, DT, being lumped in with this
and that,having aspersions on my judgment based on what other say that
you associate me with in order to dismiss what I do say.  Pure horseshit.

   Except you do it better and in a more clever and

I see, you've got me down, based on surmise, believe, bullshit and
making stuff up about me.  As below you continue:

  ...because you've had years of practice using such

Again, you make shit up that has nothing to do with me.  I studied
anatomy and physiology, passed a Regent's board and practice
para-medical deep tissue massage on injuries and other problems, in
addition to other modalities.  I don't fit your f*d up definitions,
because I believe in science *and* healing modalities and I have used
them together.  I'm not "anti-science," I'm not just a "new-ager" and
your categories are onerous as they split people into single categories
and don't allow for who they are and what they actually believe.

My uncle was a major biochemist, my friends include scientists, and I
also have years of experience in healing technology, Eastern forms and
new-age technology as well.  It's an equal mixture, and I don't justify
one over the other.  I am just more inclusive than you and don't have
limited beliefs as some may on either side of the equation.

So quit type-casting me one way or the other.

Robert

= = = = = = =


author: Evelyn

subject: Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the Pantyry)

text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

DT, as usual you have written an excellent reply, and I am going to short
change you a little bit in my answer, because Peter is calling me to get
ready to go out and brave the elements to get some lunch out,  since we have
been cooped up in the house for the last few days.   I won't refuse that!

I believe it is not so important to win an argument, as to allow the other
parties in the discussion some leeway, and not to be made to feel bad.    So
if you make someone uncomfortable, I may very well decide to provide an
argument on their behalf.  Bill is a nice person, as are most people around
here in absfg.   He made good points in his posts.   I don't pile on, and
you should know that with all the years you have been reading me.   You are
sometimes very exuberant and often very convinced of this or that thing.   I
think sometimes you just gotta live and let live and let things slide if you
want to get along.   Especially with that woo-woo chick you mentioned!

Part of making people happy is sometimes playing the game.  My friend who
did the Reiki, who has also done massage and Reiki for this or that person
as well as me, for free, and she does it just because she is a sweet and
kind person, who deserves to be made to feel good about her kind efforts on
the behalf of others.

Life is too short to go through it doing anything but being kind to one
another.   I always give her the credit for getting rid of my PF, because
whether it was a coincidence or due to her efforts, she MADE those efforts,
and offered me kindness and sympathy and tried to help me, even if it was
totally bogus bullshit, (which I am not convinced it is.... I STILL keep an
open mind about such things).

Hey it could even be those nano-tentacles!  (ducking and running while
laughing)


text:
On Feb 27, 11:39 pm, Keynes <[email]> wrote:

It doesn't have an opposite, Mr. Alleged Non-Dualist.

I don't believe in an opposing woo-woo. Rather, I simply reject bad
arguments. If there aren't good ones, I simply say "I don't know, and
neither do you."

No, pseudoscience mistakes correlation for causation. One of the very
first things you learn in all science classes, whether it's the real
hard sciences or the soft ones like psychology and sociology  is how
not to mistake correlation from causation, which is a common mistake
of the uninformed layman. So here you're starting with a contradiction
by claiming that science does exactly what the most basic scientific
understanding avoids like the plague.

Hume was one of my all-time favorites in college, btw. I loved how he
attacked causality and the self. He was a radical wild-man for his day
and a personal hero of mine. I like Locke, Berkeley, Descartes, and
Kant as well, but Hume was definitely my favorite of the "Modern"
period. Cool stuff.

However, when someone appeals to magic, or having visions in dreams,
or prophesies in a Holy Book, or claims that sticking pins in you like
a voodoo doll will cure cancer, then simply replying "well, Hume
pointed out that at the deepest level, causation is pretty iffy, so
therefore anything goes and magic is just as good as medicine that has
passed rigorous clinical double-blind trials", then I have to disagree
with you. Hume is great for inspiring awe and opening to the big
questions and giving up our complacent answers that keep us secure.
Hume is not so good if you use him to avoid going to the hospital when
you're appendix is about to burst and instead going to a "psychic
crystal healer" or "reiki practitioner". You'll, um, die.

I had a conversation with a woo-woo spiritual chick the other day, who
babbled about 'reflexology' and spouted utter bullshit about how the
nerves in various parts of the foot were connected to various organs
in the body and that by stimulating these nerves, woo-woo
practitioners could cure heart disease, emphysema, and so forth. She
just went on and on with more and more bullshit claims. The more I
asked, the more phony answers to everything, laced with terms like
"energies" and "toxins" spewed from her lips. This stuff was utter
bullshit, and I wonder how many folks with pain in their chest or with
an inflamed appendix might go to a 'reflexology' witchdoctor instead
of a qualified physician! An armchair philosopher appealing to the
wonderful speculations of Hume isn't going to save your life if your
appendix is inflamed, btw.

As it turns out, from actually studying the nervous system and the
brain for real, we have now mapped the nerves. And the nerves in the
feet don't map to various organs. They are right next to the genitals!
Interestingly the hands are not: they are mapped right next to the
eyes. This might explain how our proficiency at hand-eye coordination,
as well as why foot-rubs are usually a very effective form of foreplay
before sex!

http://www.asktheneurologist.com/tingling-tongue.html

Great stuff!

--DharmaTroll


author: Nobody in Particular

subject: Re: Ass Burgers, cont. Discernment vs. discrimination (was: Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the Pantyry)

text:
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:

Ever argued with a Southern Baptist about creation?  Trollpa is
exactly the same kind of fundamentalist true-believer, except on the
other side.  There's nothing you ca do about a fundie-boy.


author: Beerlet Dhiblang

text: On Mar 2, 12:25 pm, Keynes <[email]> wrote:


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

Your belief is that science, as it is understood by you at this time,
is the only allowable method to determine truth.  It is that belief,
this certitude, and yes, that arrogance that i'm addressing.  The fact
that you must resort to name-calling and insults in order to defend
your belief makes you a fundamentalist.

Defense for what?  What claims did i make other than the scientific
method may possibly not be applicable in all situations?

I've told you several times that i do not consider science a religion.
I hate to use the word "liar", but if you keep repeating what you know
not to be true, well....

What i do call a religion is *your* belief that science, as it is
understood by you at this time, is the only authority that may
determine the truth of a claim.  Your fervent crusade to evangelize
non-believers in your assertion aptly deserves the label fundie-boy.

Spoken like a true fundamentalist.  You would have done well during
the Spanish Inquisition.


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

OK, how about, "your apparent belief, as demonstrated by your tactics,
that science, as it is understood by you at this time, is the only
allowable method to determine truth."

It's true, i don't know if this is actually your belief.  Maybe it is
not and you're only acting as if it were.  But the issue i'm having is
with those acts and tactics.

Interspersed with what i see as the actual sequence of events.

DT: I claim that evidence is only what *I* will accept based on *my*
current understanding of scientific theory.

Bill: Since it is your belief that there cannot be any other
explanation than the one supported by *your* the current understanding
of scientific theory, i call you a believer.  Since you defend this
belief in a crusade of name-calling (nutter-d00d) and insults, i call
you a fundamentalist.  I do not assert any belief, in superstition or
magic, so it is incorrect to call me a believer.  Just because I
question your certitude does not mean I assert the opposite.

Bill: I do not appeal to magic.  Show me where i did.  If i come
across something that i cannot immediately explain, i simply do not
jump to conclusions.  *Allowing* for the possibility of something as
yet unexplained is not the same as asserting the existence of what you
call magic or woo-woo or appealing to it.
Other than you, i have no need to defend any belief, but admit that i
don't know and can't explain everything.

When i kill-filed you, i told you that my newsreader's default was a
time-out after 30 days.  After that, it automatically removed the
block and i left it at that.

You keep accusing me of "magical explanations".  Are you saying that
refusal to rule something out is the same as assertion?

"Scientism" is an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, i didn't
make it up.
It's a religion only for *you* and those who take it as gospel.

I'm not certain of anything.  I'm not even certain that what we call
reality is real in the sense that we define "real."  But having said
that, i'm certain (pun intended) that you will attack be for saying
it.

I didn't say that you insulted me.  I said you insulted others.  (Most
notably Keynes).  And if you dish it out, you should be able to take
it.  Calling your belief a belief, and calling your fundamentalist
tactics fundamentalist, this i do not regard as insults.  The one time
i deliberately insulted you when Keynes related about his daughter's
near-suicide and you wrote, "ya drive your own spawn to near suicide".
For that base, vicious attack you deserve any insult anyone could hurl
at you.

I called you crybaby for whining about others doing unto you as you do
unto others.

My mistake.  I assumed you knew the definition and wouldn't object to
it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

That's not the problem.  The problem is asserting that such things
cannot exist and especially your tactics in attacking those who
believe they do.  If you'd just calmly refute the claims or say "I
don't know", i would probably be on your side.  It's your pitbull
tactics, your waterboarding, your insults, your vicious attacks, your
display of certitude that gets me going.
Are you afraid you would be less of a man if you'd scale back the
venom?

No, i have not.

I have explained to you what i understand as "scientism", the belief
that science is the only authority that can explain phenomena.
I keep explaining what i mean, and you keep saying, "no, you mean
something different."  (So you in effect claim you can read my mind
better that i can)
Is there any way out of this loop?

Your favorite tactic - strawman argument.

The lie i alluded to was your repeated claim, ad nauseum, that i call
science a religion, even though i told you repeatedly that i do not.
It is getting old.

Oh?  When?

I call you a liar only when you repeatedly keep saying things that you
know are not true, like that i call science a religion.

That's gotta be one of the best (or worst?) strawman arguments I've
ever come across.  When it comes to strawmen, you're certainly pretty
good.

Now you're talking like Appledog. And that's not a compliment.

No, that's how i picture you.  Willing to use any tactic to convert
those evil woo-wooists.


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:02:49 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

What is the opposite of woo woo that you use to refute it?
It can't be reason, because even science mistakes correlation
for causation. (And the whole proposition of causality is pretty
iffy as Hume pointed out.)

"John Locke had determined the fundamental
principle of Empiricism: the immediate object
of knowledge is sensations which the subject
experiences within himself.


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

Evelyn's not a baby.  I'm not "promoting" anything, just saying what I
think.  I'm not anti-science but I don't believe it's omniscient, or
that it doesn't make choices and perceptions based on a belief system
that doesn't see everything.  You can keep your hard agenda of promoting
only one way of looking at the world.  Go for it!  It makes you feel
like you are on a worthy Crusade and you can have fun being a
Conquistador.  But it isn't the final word on everything, and yours is
not the only valid view.  Not everything in experience is about what
happened to make it to a study, but you think that is the only
discussion worth having.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = =


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

The True Cure for planters warts is a Swiss Army Knife.


subject: Re: Assorted woo, acupuncture and mind power (was Re: Raiding the  Pantyry)

text:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:38:39 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

Your argument of cherry picking and such also applies to
official Rx. The official treatment for Ev didn't work.  So
why is it supposed to be good? You allow cause and effect
in one case and deny it in the other.  Make up your mind.

Anyone who goes the official Rx route is subject to the same
flaws in reasoning as you ascribe to woo-woo-ism and TV
preachers. People do get well in spite of medication. Unless
the med is really, really bad. And too often it is.

It isn't enough to say there have been clinical trials. The sample
is small. The subjects are cherry picked to begin with, and problematic
cases (so common in the population) are left out. Until the sales campain
launches and the med is sold as good for everybody.

In addition there is bias and outright fraud in some case we know about.
(And likely in many that we don't know about.) In the previous
administration there was even the substitution of a competitor's
med for the one supposed to be tested. (They likely assumed if
the other guys' drug got through testing once, it would again.)
Under GOP leadership big pharma ran the FDA and polluters
ran the EPA.

Where do you get your unshakable faith in pharma in spite
of all evidence to the contrary? The industry is where all the
former quack makers and salesmen have graduated into.
It ain't science - it's flim flam big time.


text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Whoa, Dharmatroll!   You are running away with this!

I don't know why or how Reiki works....... or what.   I know that my foot
felt almost instantly better after my friend did her Reiki thing, and it was
such a welcome relief!

It could have been my own body releasing some sort of relaxing hormone that
made the PF stop.   It could have been psychological.  It could have been
coincidentally just the day that the thing had run its course and was going
to give it up anyway.   If I stop to think about it, it could be any number
of possible explanations, but it definitely DID work!

I think that people should do whatever they want to do, even if it is
bullshit.
You never know what 'bullshit' is going to work for who, or why, or how it
works.

Have you never heard of the Placebo effect?

I have heard of a lot of weird pseudo scientific treatments over the years,
and most people who swear by them all say they worked for this or that, just
as I did.

But I assure you, if I get sick with something serious I will GO TO THE
DOCTOR first.

I personally know of several people who went to various healers with cancer.
They are all dead.   One woman went to the great pyramid and sat in the
kings chamber, and swore she had some fabulous transformative psychological
experience there.   She's dead.    Another one just went to local healers
who prayed over here.   She's dead.   Another one told me how they had
detected cancerous cells in her cervix, and she was going to use alternative
medicine and healers.   She's dead.

Shall I go on?

But the goddamned Reiki worked like magic on my plantar fasciitis, which had
me in excruciating pain for months beforehand.

Go ahead and do Reiki, or acupuncture or whatever, but go to the doctor
first.


author: SG

text:
On Feb 28, 8:49 am, niunian <[email]> wrote:
<snip>

It's all about the resonance..

SG


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

Bullshit.  There are many chronic conditions that last for years, or
never get better.  My swallowing difficulty has lasted for over twenty
years, despite a lot of consultation with specialists who are helpless
to affect it.  It used to be really bad, and what made it more than 75%
better [my estimate] was a series of acupuncture treatment.  When it got
worse again in recent years, the doctors were just as helpless as they
were 20 years ago, and a couple of them even recommended acupuncture.
Just to prove that I'm fair about it, the acupuncturist I saw this time
around was not as effective as the ones I saw in NY where the result was
dramatic.

Evelyn could have had horribly painful plantar fasciitis forever; there
is no reason why it would have to eventually get better.  There is no
reason why our family friend's debilitating arthritis of the hand just
*happened* to get better while she was taking acupuncture treatments for
that precise condition.  Your inability to consider these true-life
stories and to automatically chalk them up to coincidence is just your
own belief system drawing conclusions for you, in the face of evidence
that something happened in many cases that were otherwise untreatable by
  traditional means.

I could tell you more true stories of people I personally know, but it
would have no effect on you at all.  Your mind is closed.

Robert

= = = = = = = = = = = =

   And


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 06:27:17 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

Trust your doctor and you may get a placebo of relief.
Or you may get hormone replacement or phen phen,
or possibly addictive drugs, or fatal anaesthesia a la
Michael Jackson.

Distrust Rx and you are likely to lose the placebo effect.
But you won't get any other side effects either.

I've had successful major surgery, and bursitis cured
with cortisone shots.  But three different statins had
no great effect on my cholesterol levels, so I quit them.
(Avoiding muscle and liver damage they warn against.)

The jury is still out on the value of statins to prevent
further atherosclerosis. (Which they don't pretend to
cure). The experiment on the public continues.
Lipitor (whose patent is about to run out) has been the
most prescribed, most profitable drug of them all.

My doctor prescribed a heavily advertised blood thinner,
(name escapes me), but when I read the fine print warnings,
I decided I didn't want to have seizures or a stroke or sudden
death from an expensive preventive med for chronic condition.

My mother and my aunt were both on rat poison (warfarin)
for various conditions they may or may not have had. They
did get the nose bleeds, and god knows what internally.

Chantix is advertized as a med to stop smoking. But it's
side effects are permanent brain damage even after you
stop taking it. Really! And the FDA allows it to be sold.

In many cases the cures offered are much worse than the
disease. A sleep aid that causes sleep walking, sleep driving,
sleep whatever, with loss of responsibility and even memory?
Depression meds that cause suicide? Boner pills that can
cause sudden blindness or death? What are they thinking?

Don't let the TV tell you that you are sick.  Wait at least until
you discover a complaint yourself, and it gets bad enough you're
ready to roll the dice. Then consider your options, and take pharma
claims with a pound or two of salt.

("Controlled scientific studies" aside.)


text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Your divine grace ydddt, the famous woo-woo slayer,

We are in agreement more than we differ..... which is why we have been
friends for lo all these years.

HOWEVER please remember that "don't know mind" is still a good thing to
practice and live.    There absolutely ARE things that SOUND like woo woo
and really aren't at all, such as that nice link you posted on FB today
(which I nicked) about the sea algae and the nano tentacles.   That was very
cool.   I am sure my brilliant science-geek grandsons will enjoy that a lot,
as will all my friends.

A cute story about a woo-woo, and completely off topic.   My grandmother was
a true bodhisattva, an incredible woman.   Anyway she got married in 1910 or
something like that, and had 5 kids in the days before washing machines.
Every Monday was washday, and they had to boil the linens in a big cauldron
and scrub things on scrubbing boards and such.   It was a big job and a big
deal.   Real busy work and enough to make me eternally grateful for my
wonderful new Bosch machines that do everything but sort and fold (but you
know there is no perfection here in Samsara anyway).

Anyway she was outside hanging wash on the clotheslines, and her youngest
child kept saying "Mommy - look at da woo woo"...  and like most little
kids, everything alive, from a fly to a horse, or a cat was a "woo woo"
....so she ignored him.    Finally she looked where he was pointing, and
there was a huge moccasin snake which had crawled into the nice warm wet
laundry basket under the sheets.    Had she reached in there too quickly
without looking, it might have bitten her.

So if these topics can be linked together in some way, it is wise to pay
attention when someone says "look at the woo-woo".   If someone gets sick,
GO TO THE DOCTOR.   But I do prefer to keep an open mind.   I had to try
acupuncture to see if it did any good.    The first time I tried it, it was
really amazing.   I used to get a "crick" or stiff muscle in my left
shoulder blade all the time.   A Korean acupuncturist stuck a few needles in
that spot and I have NEVER since, had that recur.    But when I was in
severe pain from shoulder surgery, the acupuncture did absolutely nothing
for me.    I don't care if people try any alternative therapy or if someone
prays over another person or waves their hands, rattles bones, burns
incense, casts spells or whatever.   Go to the doctor as well.

You never know.  Maybe one day someone will discover some nano-tentacles
pouring from the hands of a Reiki healer....
(I said that just to poke at my pal dharmatroll)  LOL!


text:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:45:31 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

Official Rx is always making outrageous claims.
They even peddle cures to the public and tell them
to "ask your doctor" for this med or that.  Folks
who didn't even know they were 'sick' become
patient-customers.  Peddling disease? Incontinence,
dry eye, arthritis pains, unhappiness, lethargy,
sleeplessness, sleepiness, hair loss, toenail fungus,
dyspepsia, erectile disfunction, heart burn, gloom
and despair.  They can cure it all.  But first they
have to draw attention to it.  Repeatedly.

If trials are so rigorous, why are there so many fatal side effects?
Trials are usually quite small samples, just hopeful indicators,
and not possibly definitive.  The real trials take place on the
public at large. I give the doctors credit for reporting side effects
enough so that when the body count gets high enough, a drug
can be removed (with difficulty) from the market.  And these
were not life saving drugs to begin with, but just piddly little
things for symptomatic relief of minor complaints, not cures.

"Death by doctors and hospitals" is not uncommon.
The figure is as high as motorway fatalities.  Is that
situation chronic or 'curable'?

I don't mind official cures when truly necessary.
But we've gone far beyond that by making a nation
of trusting hypochondriacs, sheep for the shearing.


text:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:00:44 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <[email]>
wrote:

Flim flammer heal thyself.

You overstate your case, and I'll overstate mine.


author: Kitty P

text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Feb 25, 8:46 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

The ditsy blonde seduced by the Nutter-d00d? Heh.

Oh, balderdash with your "modalities" and "synapsing". The point is
that people pay to be duped by placebos like acupuncture or crystal
healing or reiki or whatever, and when the flim-flam is attributed to
woo-woo like "meridians" or "chi" or "vital energies", and people are
led, like Nutter-d00d, to irrationally fear real doctors and medicine,
then they go to the woo-woo-ists instead of getting real help, and
they are more likely not to get the real medical treatment they need.

That's the gist of it. Now I don't have time to go into more detail
about this, for, as you can see, my superhero abilities are being
maxxed out on the factory-farm animal welfare threads, and that is
monopolizing my posting time today. But I'll get back to dealing with
your flim-flammery at some point.

--DharmaTroll
-----------

Silly goose. Out of curiousity, what's your educational background sweetie?

Kitty


text:
"Dï¿½jï¿½ Fu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I guess it wouldn't be the right time to recommend one....  ;)


text:
Dï¿½jï¿½ Fu wrote:

Oh wait! That was just a fast read, there's more.

"Symptom reduction and response rates did not differ significantly
between controls (control acupuncture, 37.5%; massage, 50.0%).
They also had significantly greater response rate (63.0%)"

But wait...

The difference between the massage physical placebo and
(some kind of acupuncture) showed a +11.5% FOR THE PLACEBO
and the difference between massage and (the wtf accupuncture - WTFA)
showed a +13% for the WTFA.  The pregnant ladies in the WTFA results
were "assessed" by the "assessing acupuncturists" - ie: talked to,
symptoms discussed, etc. etc., supposedly to choose the 'correct'
personal acupuncture points, but NOT by the svedish massage or
generic acupuncturists (so far as the study indicates).

A missed clue in the writeup:
"Only one form of psychotherapy (ie, interpersonal psychotherapy)
has been specifically tested during pregnancy and found to be effective
for pregnant women, producing 52% reduction in depression severity."

Nothin' helps a depressing situation like a good talk with the AcuDoc
every few weeks, I always say. Sticking a few pins in yer arse is
good reinforcement, too.


author: Lee Rudolph

text:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9j=E0_Fu?= <[email]> writes:

C'mon, you know Sveedes drink *coffee* when they "break out".

(Announcer, sotto voce) We've replaced the needles with
coat hangers.  Will anyone notice the difference?

Lee Rudolph


text:
"Evelyn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hme7cf$6vj$[email]...

Evelyn- what you are referring to sounds like part of the essence that
brings peace and contentment to our lives - the ability to not only give out
of caring, but to also receive. Caring for others of course may have nothing
to do with science. But it often has everything to do with comfort during
times of pain. Too bad everyone doesn't have that kind of experience with
others. I know that it is a great part of my own happiness.

The argument about Reiki  always charging a lot of money is ludicrous,
although I know some people do charge, both your and my experiences were
free. To argue that they claim they can cure is ludicrous, because I have
never come across anyone who has said that and it would, in fact, it be in
violation of most State laws if they did. But when someone has their mind
made up - the truth doesn't matter. Our experiences don't matter. In fact,
to the Troll fella, I do not believe that we actually matter either. It's
all about the game. Too bad. Human connection with others is a lovely thing.

Kitty


text:
Nobody in Particular wrote:

Just hold it right there for a moment. Describe your idea
of "science" and the (presumably) proposed alternative
"methods" of knowing. Lets not go any further before these
items in the debate are resolved. In particular, the first
clause, claiming to know another's "belief" in such a definitive
sense, needs to be clarified.

There is, to my knowledge and experience, no such *thing*
as "science". It is not a set of "things", nor does it
propose any "thing". If you propose that a method,
other than the scientific method, be used to examine
the world of common experience, please describe it. If you
propose thet *NO* method can do so, please state that
as well (it will still be a proposition/hypothesis).

What is this other than a Philosophy 101 cafeteria argument
and why are you being such an ass about it? Did DT step
on your karmic cheeseburger or something? Sheesh! If
you're gonna argue, at least argue the point and quit being
such a frikkin' old baby about it.

You have another "way of knowing" that applies to all
and sundry? Cough it up. We're all ears.


text:
"halfawake" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmd8fq$ie3$[email]...

Robert all during my childhood, we were told that the old wives tale that if
you touched a toad it would give you warts, was just that.... an old wives
tale.   It was unscientific superstitious nonsense.   THEN many years later,
they discovered that the virus that causes warts lives on the skin of toads.
So science finally caught up with superstition and proved it to be correct.

Dharmatroll is entirely too ready to debunk anything which the present
science cannot prove.   It is all "woo woo" and nonsense.

I prefer to keep a "don't know mind" about it.   It might be nonsense and it
might not be.   If something helps me and it doesn't make any sense how it
should do that, I am OK with it anyway, especially if it has actually
helped, like my friend who did Reiki for my foot.

The friend in question happens to have a very healing touch and if she
massages your stiff neck, although she is not professionally trained, it
will definitely go away.   She is a very open hearted and loving and kind
person to begin with, and perhaps that kind of a personality influences the
way the recipient responds.  It could be absolutely anything!

I say to keep an open mind about things we can't verify, but if you get
sick, absolutely go to the doctor first!   I believe in certain alternative
therapies but in a limited way.    I use them in conjunction with real
medical help, and I don't rely on them and won't pay fortunes for these
unproven alternatives, but hey, what the heck.... if the doctor can't cure
you, how could it possibly hurt to try something once?


text:
Dï¿½jï¿½ Fu wrote:

It would cure what ails you too.

Just kiddin'!   :)

Robert

= = = = = = = = =


text:
"Dï¿½jï¿½ Fu" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Better yet, go to the doctor and let him remove it neatly and sweetly.


text:
"Nobody in Particular" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hm9u8g$ssg$[email]...

I didn't read anything past nice blonds.

Kitty


text:
"Nobody in Particular" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hm9u8g$ssg$[email]...

It's his favorite thing to do.
But you gotta admit he writes well and honestly he is right in that there
are a lot of wacky quacks out there.


text:
"Keynes" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I was on a certain medication for a couple of years.   Seemingly worked OK,
but it did have some side effects.  One of which was weight gain, for an
illness in which weight gain is not a good thing.    The other one (which
nobody mentioned) was bone loss.    At one point, I stepped in a pothole,
fell and my shoulder shattered like it was made of nothing.    Now new
things are coming out about that same med.   Heart problems and other stuff.
They never tell us till it is too late.   There is talk of recall, but
meanwhile they made their money.

I recall in the early nineties they told every woman she had to go on
hormone replacement therapy.   Every doctor pushed this on every woman, to
the point it was really insulting.   One doctor refused to take me as a
patient because I told him I wouldn't take it.   This coincided with a
sudden increase in the number of breast cancers.   There were TV shows,
doctors appearing on various news programs, advising women to take it, with
all sorts of miracle results promised.   I knew it was bullshit right from
the beginning.

Finally after ten years of pushing this stuff endlessly, it all came out.
Yes, it definitely was implicated in increased cancer rates.
Now they seldom prescribe it, and only for a short time.

Since they stopped pushing it, the cancer rate has dropped dramatically.

Coincidentally (?) among the women friends who told me I was crazy for not
taking it, several have had breast cancer with chemotherapy and neuropathy
and other attendant horrible after effects.

Want to talk about woo woo?

Science is still our best bet, but when human greed enters the equation, the
pharmaceutical industry is nearly as bad as the worst faith healer.   They
have few ethics.   Just get the drug out there, get people taking it, and
make the money.

Even still, if I get sick, I go to the doctor first.   There are still some
honest doctors out there.   I go to a Thai doctor, a buddhist, btw, who is
absolutely brilliant.   I do trust him.


text:
Evelyn wrote:

I think you point out rightly that there is a difference between being
open to alternative ideas and treatment, and being stupid.  I would
never try to "prove" that alternative treatments work to cure cancer and
say I don't need chemotherapy.  There is not enough certainty in the
alternatives to risk one's life.  However, that does not mean that you
cannot get added value from the combination of chemo or radiation
treatment with alternative adjuncts, nor does it mean that in certain
cases for certain conditions that alternative treatments will not be
effective.  The massage techniques I described recently for diabetic
peripheral neuropathy and retinapathy have a proven track record with
these conditions, and are effective, but I would never stupidly claim
that they will cure cancer.  Chemo and radiation therapy have the best
track record for cancer so far, so I would have to be stupid not to use
the appropriate treatment if I needed it .  One doesn't have to be an
ignorant fool or on the other hand someone who only believes in
controlled studies and nothing else as evidence in order to live a sane
and balanced life, using effective treatments from a variety of sources.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = = =


author: niunian

text:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:59:44 -0800 (PST), SG <[email]>
wrote:

The day of justice is coming soon.


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:57:04 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

It's mistake to use acupuncture to kill pain when its real purpose is
to heal the body. Feeling pain after an invasive surgery is the body's
natural reaction and an important part of healing process. I would
hoped the acupuncture to intensify your pain to speed up your recovery
which apparently is exactly what happened according to your own word.
On the other hand, a skilled acupuncturist would have the ability to
balance the need for the body's speedy recovery and the need for
reducing the pain.


text:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:00:24 -0800, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

DTrollpa invented college right after he invented air.
Critical thinking is his forte. (Or Alamo as we call it.)
He is an unparalleled parker, and imperial stinker.
He takes no prisoners in his quest for world domination.
Don't mess with him. He's already a mess.

(This has been a public service announcement.)


author: liaM

text:
Le 3/1/2010 4:01 AM, Kitty P a ï¿½crit :

And carers need tender loving care, too.  I hope you have someone who
cares for you when you come home having spent hours of your time caring
for others.


text:
"Kitty P" <[email]> wrote in message
news:l6Gin.9200$[email]...

Kitty, I can only agree with all you have said.   (((((  hugs ))))) to you.
Being kind to oneself and others is a wonderful thing.

Doing any art lately?   I have been in a bit of a slump and haven't even
touched a brush in a long time.   The interest is coming back though, and I
am tempted to start again.


text:
Déjà Fu wrote:

If you're asking for a precise definition of the term, i'll pass.
Never been much good at definitions, and i'm not interested in picking
nits.  But i believe that you and i and him don't really have a
disagreement on what "science" is, so what's the point?

Where the difference in opinions comes from is in the interpretations.
He appears to be stuck in the old Newtonian interpretation, which is
nice and mechanical, rigorous and certain.  Since the advent of
quantum mechanics, however, that certitude has taken a hit.  It is no
longer fashionable to display absolute certainty.  F. David Peat has
written a book "From Certainty to Uncertainty."  Haven't read it yet,
but it's on my list.

I don't.  I only take issue with his display of certitude.
My favorite quote:
Certitude conquers doubt, not ignorance. And with doubt conquered,
ignorance is invincible.
-- Lee Dillion

OK, "his acts due to his apparent belief".  Does that make you happy?

I'm saying that the scientific method is perfectly OK.  I'm also
saying that the *certitude* that nothing can possibly exist that is
not provable by the scientific method, is not OK.
There's a difference between saying that Santa Claus cannot exist and
anyone who thinks so is an idiot, and "i don't know".

I argue because he's being such an ass about it.  I just don't like
arrogance and certitude.  If he wouldn't display such an "I'm the
authority of what's reasonable and you're an idiot" attitude, i would
have never disagreed.  He insults others, calls them names, but then
throws a hissy-fit if others do the same to him.
If someone tells me that accupucture helped them after allopathy did
not, my attitude would be, well maybe, maybe not.  But he's gotta come
out on his crusade to crush that claim, afraid his pecker would fall
off if he didn't.

No, i don't.  But i also don't assert that there isn't one.


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:16:40 -0500, Déjà Fu <[email]> wrote:

Well, hit me with a truck and call it science!

Everything you know about orange juice
is nothing compared to the drinking of it.

Drinking it, you 'know' more than you can ever say.

Science is an abstract quest for explanation-understanding.
It's a narrowing in on definable features. (And often assumes
that it's definitions are definitive rather than narrowly descriptive.)
It has it's value, if carefully used. But it certainly isn't applicable
to all things in every way.

Humans are sensual creatures, and when you honestly get down
to it, sensuality (particularly personal comfort) is All we care about.
Enjoyment of life (success) is beyond the reach of science because
it's all about feelings-attitude, and not about 'things' and what they do.

The difference between science and actual living is
greater than the difference between a menu and a meal.


text:
Evelyn wrote:

Yeah, and he uses that to squash anything that is not on the official
list.  He almost serves a useful purpose by decrying the quackery that
is around, but doesn't make any distinctions between things that are
phoney and things that just haven't been officially approved.  He may
really believe they are the same thing, but most people find through a
combination of sources the foods, medicines, vitamins, supplements and
treatments that are effective for them, and it is more complicated and
involves more subtle factors than he is willing to allow.  To that
extent he does the wide network of interacting disciplines and patients
a disservice, because his dismissal of all alternatives that have not
yet gotten their day in court is too extreme.

I doubt very much that any of DTs acupuncture studies tried using a
placebo instead of acupuncture as an adjunct for anaesthesia when
someone is going under the knife.  Does he give any specifics for this
area, where a number of hospitals do employ acupuncture for this
purpose?  No, he makes a blanket statement based on the parity of
acupuncture and the placebo effect that all acupuncture is full of it,
and dismisses it all.  What is not included in any of these studies is
the possibility that the acupuncture is effective, but that the placebo
effect -- also known as mind-body healing -- is equally effective under
the right conditions.  No reason to check that out, because it is
against the presumed meaning of the result.

What if it turned out that the placebo effect was not only as effective
as acupuncture, but was also as effective as an approved medication?
Would they say the medication doesn't work?  No, they would say the
placebo mechanism is as powerful as the medication, which is quite a
different thing.  But no such slack presumed for acupuncture, because
they are just waiting to throw it out.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = = = =


text:
Evelyn wrote:

True.  There are a lot of wackos in every field.
Including science.
And fundie-boy is one of them.


text:
On Mar 4, 8:10 pm, Nobody in Particular <[email]> wrote:

Well, yes, that's how I define woo-woo, as being certain of some
belief. It can be nonsense, but even if it's got some truth in it,
when we understand it better, if you still cling to it and don't
adjust, then your left with out-of-date superstition.

No, Bill, as my position, being a radical empiricist, means I can't
ever know anything with certainty, but can only give you the best
guess in this present moment, given the data and evidence available.
As I never know what tomorrow will bring, yet strive to make the best
predictions I can, I never can no anything for certain, but ironically
I usually make much better predictions than those who claim any kind
of certainty.

The folks who don't doubt but rather repeat the same false story over
and over even in the light of all evidence opposing you, as you are
doing now, and as Keynes has made his trademark, makes you much like
the terrorists. But actually, I wouldn't waterboard you and Keynes, as
I don't think you have any valuable knowledge worth extracting. I'd
just take you two out back and shoot you and then feed you to the
pigs. Luckily Obama has wised up and has started thinking like the
DharmaTroll by abandoning the politically correct show-trial in New
York City, as he now will hold a military tribunal and then shoot the
bastards.

--DharmaTroll


author: zenworm

text:
On Mar 4, 2:00 am, TVTom <[email]> wrote:

The Ninja Grandmaster was asked:
"How do you know which side is the 'good guys'?
He said:
"My side is ALWAYS the 'good guys'."

^~


text:
On Mar 4, 8:10 pm, Nobody in Particular <[email]> wrote:

are you certain?

^~


text:
On Mar 4, 10:18 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Actually, swallowing beliefs without evidence -- what you call
"flexible and open" doesn't lead to genuine openness; rather, it leads
to locking oneself into one's beliefs and shutting out alternatives.
Whereas skeptics who look at evidence, are much more likely to change
their minds when given evidence that contradicts their views. There
are lots of studies on this, Kitty.

--DharmaTroll


text:
On Mar 4, 5:27 pm, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Yeh, like the medical community's reaction to the evidence for
halobacter pylori. Great going, skeptics.

I worked alongside a lady who tried to tell her doctor that she caught
ulcers from her husband. If she noticed such a connection odds are
lots of other people did as well. So do you suppose the medical
community listened? Probably not, not even when the evidence was right
in front of their damned noses.

/l


text:
On Mar 4, 5:27 pm, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Well the one I had in mind was one that contradicts lots of claims by
woo-woo-ists, and instead shows that supernatural believers are a lot
more dysfunctional (higher rates of homicide, suicide, low life
expectancy, STD infection, abortion, early pregnancy, and high
childhood mortality (under five-years old).

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

And see this excellent article on the study:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

What I'm getting at, and which I can find, if you're really
interested, is the "foot in the door" technique. That is, once you
accept one irrational woo-woo or religious claim, it's then easier to
accept more of them, and to deny more plausible explanations, and
ignore science in favor of explanations of unseen "spiritual energies"
or divine intervention. Also, woo-woo believers are more likely to see
figures such as Jesus or his mom in driftwood, ice-cubes, and so
forth. And rather than attribute events to random chance, woo-woo
believers tend to interpret random events as "God's plan" or "what was
meant to be", etc.

There is a PEW article showing that when people believe woo-woo, they
are resistant to science which threatens or clashes with their woo-woo
explanations. See:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/667/science-in-america-religious-belief-and-public-attitudes

And people with woo-woo beliefs are more likely to be in denial about
evidence that humans cause climate change -- that's a biggie. I
already posted an article on that one, but here it is again:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307

--DharmaTroll


text:
On Mar 4, 8:10 pm, Nobody in Particular <[email]> wrote:

Nice try, but reversing things doesn't work, Rat Bastard Bill.

You, Keynes, Niunian, who claim certainty and truth with your woo-woo
try to murder those of us who don't live with any certainty and look
at evidence. Because I know that I don't know, I look at evidence, and
have no dogma or belief to be threatened; I look at what the evidence
says, and adjust for new evidence. Rat bastards like you can't deal
with a threat to your superstition and knowledge, so you have to kill
me, or slander me with claims of "scientism".

My "don't know mind" and doubt and appeal to examining evidence
threatens your certainty and dogma, Rat Bastard Bill. That's why you
lie and pretend I'm just another dogmatic asshole like you -- but you
hate me because I'm not dogmatic, because I want to take a look at
what's actually going on. I'm you're worst nightmare, Bill, because I
don't believe, and don't have dogma, so you have to demonize and judge
and label and insult to deal with any threat to your precious dogma
and your labeling of non-believers as fundamentalists in your fantasy
"church of scientism".

A curse on your house, Rat Bastard Bill!

--DharmaTroll


author: TVTom

text:
On Mar 3, 6:55 pm, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

You don't know your history. It was you woo-woo-ists that burned us
trolls at the stake. And it was only four centuries ago, not eight: in
1600 Giordano Bruno, DharmaTroll's hero, was burned at the stake by
you woo-woo-ist bastards. And I see now, that like Keynes, you're on
the side of the terrorists.

--DharmaTroll


text:
Evelyn wrote:

Anytime I get sick, I go to the doctor.  I don't have a naturopath, or
an acupuncturist, or a shaman.  I go to the doctor.  And I trust my
doctor and the specialists I am sometimes referred to.  I believe in
science and I believe in medicine.  I also know there are gaps, mistakes
and beliefs that enter the equation, and I know of other disciplines and
regimens that I can employ as an adjunct to my traditional
practitioners.  And many of the doctors are aware of them too, and
approve.  I have a swallowing problem and was sent to one of the
country's leading laryngeal specialists after a number of specialists
could not diagnose or help me.  I was diagnosed as having a certain
problem that was adding to the swallowing problem, and was treated
successfully for the second factor, but again, it did not improve the
swallowing.  They literally have no treatment for this particular breed
of swallowing dysfunction, although luckily it is not so bad as to
prevent me from functioning fairly normally.  This famous laryngeal
specialist said that his top-flight gastroenterologist friend has
successfully sent patients for acupuncture on the GI tract for a variety
of problems when other treatments failed.  These are not quacks, these
are the top doctors in the country.  The GI specialist said that in his
experience the acupuncture works about 50% of the time when other
treatments were ineffective.  That is anecdotal, but that is because
acupuncture is not getting those kinds of direct studies on the official
circuit.  People get grants to do studies based on what the community
thinks is a good bet or a popular topic or technique at the moment.  The
medical community does not exist in a vacuum, it's a culture.  The
doctors do not deny these uses of acupuncture as a valid treatment for
*some* illnesses.  Only DT has to wait until the third corroborating
study comes out before he'll de-clench and admit the possiblity of
anything they don't teach in medical school or push on the
pharmaceutical circuit.  DT has gotten more and more insulting about any
talk of alternatives that are not proven to his satisfaction, and that
is why I am a little pissed off right now.  I've had enough of being
told that only his way is the right way and no one else can say a word
without being harrangued, name-called and taunted.  It's enough.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = =


text:
"niunian" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Niunian, the first time I had the acupuncture, it was to deal with
menopausal symptoms, which can be really annoying.   It helped a lot.   Then
when I had the broken shoulder, my first visit to the acupuncturist gave
some pain relief, and it was in fact, the first few moments of real relief I
had in weeks.   The subsequent visits did not help the pain at all, but I
have to admit it was nice to be there and to have someone who was trying to
help, even if it didn't do much.


text:
"liaM" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4b8b3126$0$17875$[email]...

Caring for others goes hand in hand with caring for oneself.   It is a
generosity of spirit and the way to real inner and outer peace.


text:
"Evelyn" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmg8pa$s50$[email]...

Do start! I always forget how great it is when I have to stop for a few
weeks to do other stuff.

Kitty


text:
On 2/28/2010 8:07 PM, Nobody in Particular wrote:

Well, I can tell you from personal experience that the dude doesn't know
what the fuck he is talking about.


text:
"halfawake" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmfd8e$sjc$[email]...

Robert when you are in real pain, or having some kind of a real problem.....
and life is such that at some point all of us do, and something helps you,
you can only be grateful....... not go off on some tangent about whether or
not it is fakery.   I have lived long enough to see that an open mind is
almost always the best policy.   I didn't go to a Reiki practitioner, nor
did I pay her.   It was a really kind friend who did it and she offered it
for free.   So even if it turned out to be totally bogus, I let her do her
thing and was pleasantly surprised.


subject:
Re: Frogger wisdom (was Re: Vindictive realson vs. vulnerable
	votaries)

text:
On Mar 7, 8:58 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{[email][remove]>
wrote:

So close to an insight, Tang. Now if only you would add, "This is
exactly what I (Tang) have done for years, to such esteemed and
insightful posters as DharmaTroll, Fu, Jigme, and Sphere: I locked
myself into suffering, freely and unasked, by merely mirroring my
suffering everywhere, onto them."

You almost admit this when you confess:

The story of your life, Tangster!

--DharmaTroll (formerly "Jigme, the fake DharmaTroll" according to the
Tang-banger)


subject: Re: Vindictive reason vs. vulnerable votaries

text:
On Mar 6, 9:46 am, Keynes <[email]> wrote:

Too intense for me...

/l


text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Mar 4, 10:18 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Actually, swallowing beliefs without evidence -- what you call
"flexible and open" doesn't lead to genuine openness; rather, it leads
to locking oneself into one's beliefs and shutting out alternatives.
Whereas skeptics who look at evidence, are much more likely to change
their minds when given evidence that contradicts their views. There
are lots of studies on this, Kitty.

--DharmaTroll

By all means share those studies.

Kitty


author: DT

text:
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:

Well, there you go, with that anecdotal evidence again! ;-)

DT


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

High childhood mortality???  Believing in Santa Claus gets 'em dead?

DT


text:
"DharmaTroll" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Mar 4, 5:27 pm, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Well the one I had in mind was one that contradicts lots of claims by
woo-woo-ists, and instead shows that supernatural believers are a lot
more dysfunctional (higher rates of homicide, suicide, low life
expectancy, STD infection, abortion, early pregnancy, and high
childhood mortality (under five-years old).

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

And see this excellent article on the study:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html

What I'm getting at, and which I can find, if you're really
interested, is the "foot in the door" technique. That is, once you
accept one irrational woo-woo or religious claim, it's then easier to
accept more of them, and to deny more plausible explanations, and
ignore science in favor of explanations of unseen "spiritual energies"
or divine intervention. Also, woo-woo believers are more likely to see
figures such as Jesus or his mom in driftwood, ice-cubes, and so
forth. And rather than attribute events to random chance, woo-woo
believers tend to interpret random events as "God's plan" or "what was
meant to be", etc.

There is a PEW article showing that when people believe woo-woo, they
are resistant to science which threatens or clashes with their woo-woo
explanations. See:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/667/science-in-america-religious-belief-and-public-attitudes

And people with woo-woo beliefs are more likely to be in denial about
evidence that humans cause climate change -- that's a biggie. I
already posted an article on that one, but here it is again:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307

--DharmaTroll
--------------

Interesting articles. But I don't think you're going to find any 'foot in
the door' causality. Mostly because I don't think there is one. People
become fundamentalists in religions or crystal gaze for a variety of reasons
that may 'or' may not be biochemical, genetic, brainwashing by parents or
religion-based schools, just plain differences in experiences that lead to a
need to believe - and more. Whatever happens, it seems to run on a different
(not worse) kind of logic than I have and probably you share. As a Christian
friend told me one time, prove that God 'doesn't exist - and I could not of
course.

That kind of foot in the door causality has too many factors and it's too
individualized to study in most cases. It would be easier to see the pattern
in Islamic based schools in the last ten years - although that is a little
bit of an anomaly. But lack of intelligence is probably the least of the
possibilities.  Harping on that is a waste of time.

Kitty


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

Feeling better now?

Best (or worst) mirror-job i've come across in quite some time.

Nice try, but reversing things doesn't work, fundie-boy.


text:
DharmaTroll wrote:

If you didn't have such a fundamentalist belief in you anti-woo-woo
dogma, you wouldn't have to use so much venom in its defense.

Your worst mirror point is your accusation that i hate you.
I don't hate you, fundie-boy, i laugh at you and your dogmatic belief.
But from your venom it is obvious that you are consumed with hatred
for me.  If you could, you'd burn me at the stake, just as your
fundamentalist ilk did Giordano Bruno, wouldn't you?


text:
"TVTom" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Mar 3, 6:55 pm, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

You don't know your history. It was you woo-woo-ists that burned us
trolls at the stake. And it was only four centuries ago, not eight: in
1600 Giordano Bruno, DharmaTroll's hero, was burned at the stake by
you woo-woo-ist bastards. And I see now, that like Keynes, you're on
the side of the terrorists.

--DharmaTroll
____

In inquisition began to investigate witchcraft in 1326. But few were
actually killed until 1500. The trials began to peak in the 1600s.

Yes. I am part of the terrorist movement to keep minds flexible and open.
Don't hate me because I'm beautific.

Kitty


text:
TVTom wrote:

It wasn't that they were woo-wooists so much as they were
certaintists, if I may coin a word.  People so certain about being
right that they were willing to kill for it.  Certitude is what makes
a terrorist.  If one is not certain, and willing to listen, one would
never kill for one's opinions.

It doesn't matter so much if one believes or does not believe in what
you call "woo-woo".  It's how fundamentally certain one is about ones
opinions.

YOU, fundie-boy, the certaintist, are on the side of the terrorists,
the kind of people who burned Giordano Bruno.  Not people willing to
listen and doubt, like Keynes and Kitty, the ones you'd like to
waterboard.


text:
"halfawake" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmfdu1$vps$[email]...

DT is a smart guy but he tends to get .....uhhh..."exuberant" at times.
When he does that I reply with silence.   I don't get pissed off, he doesn't
get pissed off, and it defuses the situation.

I almost went into a little rant yesterday about herbs, because that is an
area I happen to know a little about.

Herbs ARE real medicine.   Many drugs have been developed because some herb
did something, and so the drug company synthesized it.   The dummies of the
world think that herbs are just some woo-woo nonsense, or worse, some
harmless vegetable, and can actually make themselves sick by combining herbs
with drugstore meds.   You really need to know what you are doing if you
take herbal meds.    The preparation, the time of year, the leaves or the
root or the flower, is often the effective part.

Another thing, dried herbs are often less effective than tinctures for
certain ones.   And herbal producers have to be really ethical, since often
only the leaves or only the root has medicinal properties.   Sometimes it is
only the newest growth in the spring which is any good, and other times it
is the flower.   Europeans have been using herbal medicine for many years,
and so their traditions are pretty trustworthy.    Same goes for Chinese
herbal medicine.


text:
On Feb 28, 11:47 pm, niunian <[email]> wrote:

Better take an umbrella. And rubbers.

/l


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:53:22 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]> wrote:

If I can find a japanese translation of "whip stick therapy"
I'll start a new trend of pain relief methods.  It would
truly relieve the pain when the whipping stops.


text:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:53:22 -0500, "Evelyn" <[email]>
wrote:

For westerners, because they rarely have Chinese medicine or
acupuncture, anybody capable of sticking a needle into their body can
bring them great relief no matter what. Their body will react to the
needle or needles with great anticipation. For Cantonese people,
because the fact they virtually soak themselves in Chinese medicine
everyday, the effect of treatment becomes virtually non-existent.

In my opinion, most of acupuncturists in the west are second rated.
They may know which points to use to treat certain problems, but they
will not know the underlying reason and theory of using those points.
In your case, the doctor clearly has no clue how to treat a patient
recovering a surgery. That is why he intensified your pain instead of
reducing it. You are lucky he did not worsen your condition with
brutal aggressive treatment. On the other hand, most acupuncturists in
the west I know would never dare to use any dangerous points to treat
their patients.

My suggestion is, you should keep western medicine and Chinese
medicine separate in dealing with your problems. Combining western
medicine with Chinese medicine together is a job only for the expert
of both fields. Mixing them up blindly may not bring the expected
result.


text:
Le 3/1/2010 12:36 PM, Evelyn a ï¿½crit :

I wrote that because my friend is a registered nurse working
in a community run retirement home and needs all the peace she
can get.


text:
"Kitty P" <[email]> wrote in message
news:wKVin.9260$[email]...

I have been collecting various nice photos that I think will translate well
to canvas and acrylic interpretation.   But a lot of health issues have been
coming up, and I just lose the impetus when I am not feeling well.    I need
to get back to it.


text:
"Hollywood Lee" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmfbc8$rnb$[email]...

Sometimes he does, and sometimes he doesn't.
I think it is a kind of a sport with him.


text:
Evelyn wrote:

What irks me is the idea that such an event must be a coincidence,
because it's just impossible that it could have actually worked.  So
every experience of this kind is thrown aside, instead of being treated
with wonder and enjoyment.  I think that it is a kind of destruction of
possibility to think that way, and one should be mindful of the
difference between being gullible and being open.  There is a very
definite line where we can use our intelligence and still have new
experiences.

Best,
Robert

= = = = = = = = = = =


text:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 14:32:52 -0800, Nobody in Particular
<[email]> wrote:

Now, that's funny.


text:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:46:06 -0600, DT <[email]> wrote:

You don't understand.  Woo woo is BAD.
You can say anything BAD you want about it,
because woo woo is just so BAD.  You want
to know how bad it is?  It's just Awful BAD.

Skientific Psykologie can prove it.
It can prove Anything you want.
Skience R00lz!


text:
"Nobody in Particular" <[email]> wrote in message
news:hmru2l$oqt$[email]...

I'm not sure I've seen Rat Bastard more than once in any post before.


text:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:10:01 -0800, Nobody in Particular
<[email]> wrote:

There is nothing wrong to be certain of one's own belief. In fact
being certain is always better than being a gullible. The problem is
not in one's certainty. The problem is in one's own belief. I think
Mr. DharmaTroll is too superstitious about the scientific method of
study. That is why he simply can't understand the Chinese medicine
which specifically deals with the issue of harmony and balance between
the body and soul, something out of the reach of science and
technology.


author: DharmaTroll

text:
On Mar 5, 9:49 am, "Kitty P" <[email]> wrote:

Yes, I agree with you on all of that.

But that is a different -- and worse -- logic. That's evoking an
invalid type of reasoning, called a fallacy. It's the fallacy of
"proving a negative" which can't be done. The logic that (hopefully)
you and I share is rational and valid. You see, if you can assert
claims without any evidence, you can just as easily dismiss such
claims with out evidence. The believer tries to say "I believe without
evidence, but you need to provide evidence to disprove my woo-woo".
That's a cheap trick. The onus is on the anus, I say: it's up to the
asshole making the assertion to provide evidence for their gods or
other assorted beasties, realms, energies, or healing powers. It's not
up to us to disprove them (which isn't possible to do). Because all
those things are possible -- so it's mistaken to try to prove them
impossible. The point, however, is whether they actually are going on
or are out there, and they probably aren't, because we have no good
evidence for them. And then you move on to something else.

--DharmaTroll


author: Tang Huyen

subject:
Re: Vindictive reason vs. vulnerable votaries (was: Re: Assorted woo,
 acupuncture ....

text:
Beerlet Dhiblang wrote:

The way it looks to me, you want the herdish
feeling of belonging, but do not want to belong
to a church which has a set of beliefs that is
different from yours. If that is the problem, the
solution will be simple: look for a church which
has a set of beliefs matching your more closely.
However you are unwilling to part company
with such a church, therefore the way you
present the problem is false. You are lying.
Probably you (or some part of you) still
believe in the set of beliefs that you think that
you no longer believe in. Therefore the
problem is sorting out what it is that you want
to believe in or not believe in.

Or perhaps, it is not so much the set of beliefs
per se that matters, but the attitude that it
inspires: a positive attitude with a sense of
mission, a sense of purpose, a sense of being
elected. If so, you don't want to share the set of
beliefs of the church, but you want to bum a
ride on its positive, cogent, forward-looking
attitude, which is precisely inspired by its set of
beliefs. It is well-known that in the USA,
conservative, fundie churches draw a lot of
contributions, but that liberal churches do not,
and that the difference is due to the attitude that
they inspire respectively: the fundie churches
offer a cohesive world-view, a sense of mission,
a sense of purpose, something to get excited
about, whereas the liberal churches are more
like social clubs with little religious fervour in
them. So, if I get it aright, you want to bum a
ride on the religious fervour that a fundie church
offers, without sharing its fundie set of beliefs.
You look down at it from the intellectual side
(the side of belief), but enjoy it from the affective
side (the side of emotional uplift). If so, you are
divided within yourself and against yourself, and
such achurch only plays as a blank screen on
which to project your inner conflict. You push
and pull yourself in different directions and
can't reconcile yourself with yourself. You don't
want to acknowledge that you want to share the
religious fervour of the church, which fervour is
precisely inspired and animated by the set of
beliefs that is puerile to you. What is vulnerable
in you is your demand for the gratification of
your herd instinct in general and of your
yearning for religious fervour in particular. The
part of vindictive reason is played with
vengeance by your intellect, which looks down
on both such set of beliefs and your herdish
need for belonging, on the low end as the
herdish sense of plain-Jane belonging, on the
high end as your yearning for religious fervour
(as a shared, communal endeavour). The
deception is blatant. You are fooling yourself.

Mental culture, by which I mean Stoicism,
Daoism and Buddhism, offers methods to pull
yourself together in a single unit, to act as one,
and in your case to pull yourself together to
harmonize the intellectual side and the affective
side, the herdish side and the non-gregarious,
individualistic side. It is up to you to avail
yourself of such methods to pull yourself
together. To blame a church out there for your
inner conflicts is wimpy and irresponsible,
especially irresponsible toward yourself.

Tang Huyen