Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

It is usually indicated to me in this forum & otherwise, that Modern Science & its every/most things can't be somewhat alike "absolute" or "persitant". It is a continuing process & go on changing, modifying, banning or discarding previous findings inspite of too much advanced & harsh tests & studies, on practical applications/time testings, if new technology is found or previous one got rejected/banned due to some adversities. Too much studies, theories, substances, involvements, time avaibility with practicing person in these, ignorances,carelessness, oversights etc. due to attuned/become prominient, prefered, conventional system/s etc., can also be thought.

Under these considerations, I want to better understand that;

1. Whether we should remain always skeptic in modern science/systems & so should we do our homework before using/accepting these new technologies?

2. Can prescriber/teacher in these systems have required time, brain's capacity(for too much) to remember & apply for justified/real prescription/teaching? Whether complete knowledge just equivalent to 'research scientists' in any prescription, is really necessary & justified to effect justified/real treatment/teaching?

3. Can we get some adversities, if we don't do this homework?

4. How this homework is practical in case of common person, who has to use these sciences/systems?

5. What we can suffer by using these new technologies/systems in view of anticipated changes/non-absoluteness in these systems & by not doing the homework?

In short, I want to understand true position of 'modern science/systems' for their uses & abuses by me/common person.

Rest as usual.

Best wishes.

[ReFLeX]

Kumar, what is your first language?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
In short, I want to understand true position of 'modern science/systems' for their uses & abuses by me/common person.

Rest as usual.

Best wishes.
What your position should be is this: When you hear about some advancement in science, if it contradicts the absolute knowledge of TRS, or the semiabsolute knowledge of homeopathy, then discard it out of hand. If you can somehow take any piece of it and twist it into supporting the aforementioned systems, then do that and discard all the rest.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Kumar, what is your first language?

Not english. But we are not discussing just language here.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
What your position should be is this: When you hear about some advancement in science, if it contradicts the absolute knowledge of TRS, or the semiabsolute knowledge of homeopathy, then discard it out of hand. If you can somehow take any piece of it and twist it into supporting the aforementioned systems, then do that and discard all the rest.

To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum. Whether we are bound to accept & follow that, even unclear, is a differant matter being no other choice. But we should atleast know unclear aspects--unabling to understand, handle or be prepared for that in advance.

[joesixpack]

I'm waiting for PixyMisa's response.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum. Whether we are bound to accept & follow that, even unclear, is a differant matter being no other choice. But we should atleast know unclear aspects--unabling to understand, handle or be prepared for that in advance.
Yes, I agree. We should only blindly accept TRS. Homeopathy, just mostly, since some stuff can be cut from it to make it absolute. And from science, just whichever bits we can twist into supporting TRS. You are right. Everything else should be ignored.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
Yes, I agree. We should only blindly accept TRS. Homeopathy, just mostly, since some stuff can be cut from it to make it absolute. And from science, just whichever bits we can twist into supporting TRS. You are right. Everything else should be ignored.

Just try to understand anything in reality, neither pro nor opposite. I could benefit sufficiently, when I studied medical informations on any disease & then discussed with doctors accordingly. Antacids MOM, Alm. Hydroxide etc. related to constipated person or clear motion, is one such understanding. Under current pressure on modern science/s, we can also do something for our benefit. Why so many reputed sites are there on medical informations, suitable for a common person? Reg; absoluteness, we can say effect of traditionally used salts eg; NaCl, Sod. bicarbonate..etc. as somewhat absolute/persistant. If any such salt or natural/ body's substance(alike insulin) is there, we can think it as absolute/persistant. But if we are using any new substance, it may not be absolute/persistant. It is so simple logic.

[TheBoyPaj]

Starts with an N........

[Zep]

Nihilsm? Naturalisation? Nintendo?

[Throg]

1. We should always remain sceptical about everything . That's pretty much the basis of science. It seems to me, it has to be the basis of all rational thought applied to the real world as opposed to pure logic. Of course you should do the homework, I am surprised that is even a question. It is foolish to expect to be prepared for any situation without actually preparing for it.

2. Depends upon the person. There are stupid people and intelligent people, hard-working people and lazy people and all the shades of grey in-between. This is true of teachers/prescribers as much as anyone else. This is why you must do your homework so that you don't have to completely rely on others for your understanding. Of course, you cannot devote as much time nor hope to achieve as deep an understanding of every subject as the best specialists in a particular subject. You can attain a sufficient understanding of the principles of any subject and, more importantly, of the scientific method and critical reasoning that underpins all science to make informed decisions and to recognise where, in specific areas, you need to work to improve your knowledge. If by brain capacity, you mean the limits of memory then it is, for practical purposes, irrelevant; if you mean innate lack of intelligence then there is little you can do about that. Absolutely, it is justified and necessary for teachers/prescribers to do the homework, I'd even say it is a moral requirement. Is that really in question?

3. We can certainly get adversities. We can get ignorance and that's pretty adverse.

4. This is covering much of the same territory as 2. above. How is it practical? Well it's more or less practical depending on the individual. We each do the best we can.

5. We can suffer in exactly the same way that we can suffer from using harmful old technologies. The trick is exactly the same with new technologies as old technologies, you work to gain as complete an understanding as you can before you apply the technology.

The true position of modern sciences (I won't address "systems" as it's far too vague) is that they represent the best current understanding of the phenemona under investigation. They never stop investigating and never accept that they have the complete answer. They always try to advance understanding which means that at any particular point in time the most accurate understanding of any given phenomena is likely to be provided by modern science. The understanding is almost certainly incomplete and there is always the chance that it is just plain wrong. It is nevertheless, the best understanding that money or anything else can buy.


Incidentally, the question about your first language is sort of relevant. Sometimes it is not clear what you are asking (that is also true of those of us for whom English is our first language) and knowing your first language might enable some of us to better interpret what it is you are saying in virtue of the structure of your first language. Just a thought.

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Throg
1. We should always remain sceptical about everything . That's pretty much the basis of science. It seems to me, it has to be the basis of all rational thought applied to the real world as opposed to pure logic. Of course you should do the homework, I am surprised that is even a question. It is foolish to expect to be prepared for any situation without actually preparing for it.

Thanks for one of the best & most neutral post, here. Is there any limit of skepticism--where skeptic can become believer?

What about homework or pre-occupied with medical informations, in case of healing substances which are least toxic & with least adversities.

2. Depends upon the person. There are stupid people and intelligent people, hard-working people and lazy people and all the shades of grey in-between. This is true of teachers/prescribers as much as anyone else. This is why you must do your homework so that you don't have to completely rely on others for your understanding. Of course, you cannot devote as much time nor hope to achieve as deep an understanding of every subject as the best specialists in a particular subject. You can attain a sufficient understanding of the principles of any subject and, more importantly, of the scientific method and critical reasoning that underpins all science to make informed decisions and to recognise where, in specific areas, you need to work to improve your knowledge.

Yes, correct.

If by brain capacity, you mean the limits of memory then it is, for practical purposes, irrelevant; if you mean innate lack of intelligence then there is little you can do about that. Absolutely, it is justified and necessary for teachers/prescribers to do the homework, I'd even say it is a moral requirement. Is that really in question?

BY Brain capacity I mean, modern & some alternative science/systems have too much theories, referances, healing substances etc. which can be beyond the capacity of single brain of any healer/prescriber to understand in complete & apply at a given time. How then, he can effect really justified cure/treatment by understanding everything of a patient in some limited time? Mistakes in this respect, can be very much possible & mistakes in case of crude chemical based medicines--can mean much more than other alt. systems.

3. We can certainly get adversities. We can get ignorance and that's pretty adverse.

Yes.

4. This is covering much of the same territory as 2. above. How is it practical? Well it's more or less practical depending on the individual. We each do the best we can.

As per 2 above.

5. We can suffer in exactly the same way that we can suffer from using harmful old technologies. The trick is exactly the same with new technologies as old technologies, you work to gain as complete an understanding as you can before you apply the technology.

But adverse/toxic effects can matter, if mistakes are possible in both types.

The true position of modern sciences (I won't address "systems" as it's far too vague) is that they represent the best current understanding of the phenemona under investigation. They never stop investigating and never accept that they have the complete answer. They always try to advance understanding which means that at any particular point in time the most accurate understanding of any given phenomena is likely to be provided by modern science. The understanding is almost certainly incomplete and there is always the chance that it is just plain wrong. It is nevertheless, the best understanding that money or anything else can buy.

In view of possible mistakes, possible mistakes in technologies, adverse/toxic effects can matter much--as I said above.


Incidentally, the question about your first language is sort of relevant. Sometimes it is not clear what you are asking (that is also true of those of us for whom English is our first language) and knowing your first language might enable some of us to better interpret what it is you are saying in virtue of the structure of your first language. Just a thought.

Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.

In view of above, I feel that mistakes in current status of science tecnologies & in prescriber's interpretation can be very much possible. We may now have to find, how to justify side/adverse or toxic effects(adversities) in case of modern concentrated medicines & other's systems crude substance based healing substancs?

[joesixpack]

PIXYMISA WHERE ARE YOU????

[prewitt81]

Does it rhyme with d'oh?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
To me, any unclear system is doubtful-- homeopathy or science. I remain skeptic in these & so ant to understad maximum.Are you saying, here, that you understand science and homeopathy as well as an ant does?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Kumar Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.


Kumar's first language is obviously Trollish... but it's also clear he's quite eloquent in Gibberish as well. :D

[joesixpack]

Does it rhyme with d'oh? Yes, and here's another hint. It uses all of the letters in the alphabet between "M" and "P". It uses each of those letters exactly once, and in alphabetical order.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you.http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000008C42.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[hgc]

Originally posted by Kumar
Not english. But we are not discussing just language here. Give us a clue. How about yes/no questions? My turn: Is it a human language?

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Throg

Thanks for one of the best & most neutral post, here. Is there any limit of skepticism--where skeptic can become believer?


You are welcome. It seems to me that neutrality is a necessary corollory of scepticism (at least prior to obtaining reliable evidence to contraindicate a neutral position). As far as I can see there is no rational way for a sceptic to become a believer. Given sufficient evidence, a sceptic can provisionally accept that a proposition is likely to be true and may adopt the pragmatic position that he should behave as if it is true. Thus I accept that the best evidence suggests that the world is spheroidal, that I am a human being with the associated mental and physical needs. I conduct my life as if I absolutely knew these things since I have no rational alternative basis on which to proceed and the consequences for me should the world, in fact, be as it seems and I acted as if it were not, would be dire. Nevertheless, I am quite conscious of the fact that the world and I may be quite other than we appear to be. Should there come a point where the evidence that my perceptions of the world are false I will accept that everything I have taken for granted my entire life is wrong and attempt to adapt to the world as it is evinced to be. I do not and cannot conceive of ever believing in anything I merely have provisional beliefs based on the evidence.

BY Brain capacity I mean, modern & some alternative science/systems have too much theories, referances, healing substances etc. which can be beyond the capacity of single brain of any healer/prescriber to understand in complete & apply at a given time. How then, he can effect really justified cure/treatment by understanding everything of a patient in some limited time? Mistakes in this respect, can be very much possible & mistakes in case of crude chemical based medicines--can mean much more than other alt. systems.

Since there is no absolute knowledge, the best we can do is act in a rational manner based on the best understanding of the world available to us. I do not think it is really an objection to the practice of science or medicine that no scientist or doctor has perfect knowledge. All we can expect is that doctors and scientist use those methods which are most likely to be effective according to to the best understanding available at the time. Neither doctors nor scientists are gods but since we do not have gods available to us to perform their duties they are the best we can get. Certainly, mistakes will happen both because of the limitations of individual practitioners and of our current state of knowledge. What we must do is meticulously analyse the potential risks involved, the potential benefits involved and the probabilities of each. It is far from perfect but it is the best we can do and far better than doing nothing, as even a cursory examination of the progression of modern science and medicine shows. You have a point that chemical medicines can do more harm than alternative systems when mistakes are made but failure to take advantage of chemical medicines when they are indicated is at least equally harmful while the benefits when chemical medicines are used correctly far outweight those offered by alternative systems based on the evidence. Analysis of the risks/benefits of "conventional" modern medicine vs alernative therapies conviningly favours modern medicine.

But adverse/toxic effects can matter, if mistakes are possible in both types

Absolutely they can matter so it comes down to analysing risks/benefits again and modern medicine and science still seem to win.

Is it not sufficient that english is not my first language? Still if you will insist, I will tell you

I do not insist in the slightest. I merely point out the reason why it might be relevant. If you are willing to make the extra effort to make yourself understood (and to understand those of us who are fortunate enough to be using our own familiar language) then I applaud you for the effort.

In view of above, I feel that mistakes in current status of science tecnologies & in prescriber's interpretation can be very much possible. We may now have to find, how to justify side/adverse or toxic effects(adversities) in case of modern concentrated medicines & other's systems crude substance based healing substancs?

No argument, mistakes can and will happen in both conventional science/medicine and alternative systems. So far as I can see, reliance on alternative systems seems to be a mistake in itself since the evidence seems to show that such systems are generally ineffective (the only "alternative" therapy I can currently think of for which there has been significant favourable evidence is acupuncture but please correct me if I am wrong) such that it is really irrelevant whether or not they are safer in terms of what happens when mistakes are made. The justification for side/adverse or toxic effects in modern medicines is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by hgc
Give us a clue. How about yes/no questions? My turn: Is it a human language?

Yes.

Mojo,

I asked Throg.

:)

[Mojo]

Over to you, Throg.

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Throg
You are welcome. It seems to me that neutrality is a necessary corollory of scepticism (at least prior to obtaining reliable evidence to contraindicate a neutral position). As far as I can see there is no rational way for a sceptic to become a believer. Given sufficient evidence, a sceptic can provisionally accept that a proposition is likely to be true and may adopt the pragmatic position that he should behave as if it is true.Thus I accept that the best evidence suggests that the world is spheroidal, that I am a human being with the associated mental and physical needs. I conduct my life as if I absolutely knew these things since I have no rational alternative basis on which to proceed and the consequences for me should the world, in fact, be as it seems and I acted as if it were not, would be dire. Nevertheless, I am quite conscious of the fact that the world and I may be quite other than we appear to be. Should there come a point where the evidence that my perceptions of the world are false I will accept that everything I have taken for granted my entire life is wrong and attempt to adapt to the world as it is evinced to be. I do not and cannot conceive of ever believing in anything I merely have provisional beliefs based on the evidence.

OK, pls tell me, when you take a modern medicine, do you believe in it or remain doubtful/skeptic about it?




Since there is no absolute knowledge, the best we can do is act in a rational manner based on the best understanding of the world available to us. I do not think it is really an objection to the practice of science or medicine that no scientist or doctor has perfect knowledge. All we can expect is that doctors and scientist use those methods which are most likely to be effective according to to the best understanding available at the time. Neither doctors nor scientists are gods but since we do not have gods available to us to perform their duties they are the best we can get.

In this sense, will it not be better to first try non-toxic or self healing techniques in case of non serious/non emergency type of diseases --to avoid unnecessary adversities & chances of mistakes along with the treatments?

Certainly, mistakes will happen both because of the limitations of individual practitioners and of our current state of knowledge. What we must do is meticulously analyse the potential risks involved, the potential benefits involved and the probabilities of each. It is far from perfect but it is the best we can do and far better than doing nothing, as even a cursory examination of the progression of modern science and medicine shows. You have a point that chemical medicines can do more harm than alternative systems when mistakes are made but failure to take advantage of chemical medicines when they are indicated is at least equally harmful while the benefits when chemical medicines are used correctly far outweight those offered by alternative systems based on the evidence. Analysis of the risks/benefits of "conventional" modern medicine vs alernative therapies conviningly favours modern medicine. Absolutely they can matter so it comes down to analysing risks/benefits again and modern medicine and science still seem to win.


But in few routine diseases & which can be cured by self healings/placebo, if we compare risk/benefit ratio, what we will get?


I do not insist in the slightest. I merely point out the reason why it might be relevant. If you are willing to make the extra effort to make yourself understood (and to understand those of us who are fortunate enough to be using our own familiar language) then I applaud you for the effort.

You can take it as somewhat near to Hindi.



No argument, mistakes can and will happen in both conventional science/medicine and alternative systems. So far as I can see, reliance on alternative systems seems to be a mistake in itself since the evidence seems to show that such systems are generally ineffective (the only "alternative" therapy I can currently think of for which there has been significant favourable evidence is acupuncture but please correct me if I am wrong) such that it is really irrelevant whether or not they are safer in terms of what happens when mistakes are made. The justification for side/adverse or toxic effects in modern medicines is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

Frankly, every system has its own claims which are also supported by mass people's experiances & observations. So those claims can't be denied, in view of scientific tests & studies do not confirm it. There can also be possibilities of some miss, weakness & pendings in science, as yet. We can just say, mass existing, but couldn't yet be proved/known in exact science but should not straightaway reject it till it become clear or end in itself if fake in mass public.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Mojo
Over to you, Throg.

If Kumar doesn't want to reveal his language I will not press him to do so. Similarly, I will not reveal the size of my penis on this forum no matter how many times I am asked. Rational, open-minded thinkers should not draw adverse conclusions from either refusal. : |

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
If Kumar doesn't want to reveal his language I will not press him to do so. Similarly, I will not reveal the size of my penis on this forum no matter how many times I am asked. Rational, open-minded thinkers should not draw adverse conclusions from either refusal. : |

Thanks. You are impressing me a lot. As I already indicated to you because you asked properly, there was nothing serious/secret in telling it. It as well inicative in many of my posts. But it looked absolutely illogical to me-- their undue insistance & persistance, with so many undue remarks, without any meaningful sense. So I just carried on....Undue contradictions, just spoiled so many threads.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
OK, pls tell me, when you take a modern medicine, do you believe in it or remain doubtful/skeptic about it?


I remain doubtful/skeptical. In terms of the placebo effect that somewhat reduces the chances of the medicine being effective but, if the medicine does not rely entirely on the placebo effect (in which case is it really medicine?) then it should be effective nonetheless.



In this sense, will it not be better to first try non-toxic or self healing techniques in case of non serious/non emergency type of diseases --to avoid unnecessary adversities & chances of mistakes along with the treatments?

I'm quite loathe to take medicine if I can avoid it anyway. When it becomes clear that a minor illness will not clear-up on it's own I will consult a doctor. If medicine is prescribed, I will immediately research the possible side-effects (ok, I'll read the notes included with the medicine and do a quick search of the internet for information of the medicine). Research permitting, I take my medicine and see what happens. I have never had an adverse reaction to any medicine I have taken but if I did, I would immediately go back to the doctor.

I would not try any of the non-toxic or self-healing techniques (unless you include wrapping up warm and getting lots of sleep) for the simple reason that the research shows that the only real effect to be had is the placebo effect. Given my scepticism, the placebo effect is unlikely to be of use to me. Sure, the risk of adverse side-effects is very low with most of these techniques (other than the risk of loss of time and money) but since there is no apparent reason to expect any benefit from them that strikes me as irrelevant. If you can point me to any information which you feel would pass my tests of scepticism, I would be delighted to reconsider.

But in few routine diseases & which can be cured by self healings/placebo, if we compare risk/benefit ratio, what we will get?

We would have to look at the evidence for the individual diseases (again, if you can point me to information which you feel would be likely to sway me, given my scepticism, I will be delighted to give it a look - time permitting) but in general the risk/benefit ratio favours modern medicine especially where lack of credulity is likely to count against any placebo effect.

You can take it as somewhat near to Hindi

Thankyou. I will try to learn what I can of Hindi syntax.

Frankly, every system has its own claims which are also supported by mass people's experiances & observations. So those claims can't be denied, in view of scientific tests & studies do not confirm it.

The manner in which these experiences occured and observations were made is extremely important. Human perception has some huge flaws in terms of gathering reliable evidence. So far, scientific method is the best means of compensating for those flaws that I have come across. As a very broad generalisation, I would take it to be the case that if scientific tests and studies repeatedly fail to confirm a phenomenon we can provisionally deny the existence of that phenomenon just as we would provisionally accept the existence of that phenomenon were the converse true.

There can also be possibilities of some miss, weakness & pendings in science, as yet. We can just say, mass existing, but couldn't yet be proved/known in exact science but should not straightaway reject it till it become clear or end in itself if fake in mass public.

I think that what you are expressing here is, in principle, not too different from my own position that knowledge is provisional. I think we differ in the level of confidence we require in order to treat a theory as knowledge for practical purposes. To my way of thinking, there are an infinite number of potential ideas and theories. Given this, one could not possibly give time to all of them thus I require logical consistency and a high level of evidence before I will treat a theory as (provisional) knowledge. Generally speaking, I would be even less inclined to take experimental drugs than I would be to take a homeopathic treatment, for example.

[Dancing David]

Kumar, Hiya!

It seems that i can sort two basic themes in your posts.

1. Should we remain sceptical of modern science/medicine?

2. Is it possible that the sceptical approach does not address the ways in which alternative therapies are useful?

To the first, it is essential that any one recieving medical treatment be knowledable of that treatment, one should undertsand the doctor's assesment and diagnosis, and the rationale behind the prescribed treatment. One should also know what the potentail adverse effects of any treatment might be. Then as treatment progresses the consumer maty make informed choice as to wether the treatment is beneficial ot ineffective, also as to wther the treatment has enough benefit to outwiegh any adverse effects.

Onto science, the results of modern science are acsessible to the average person, anyone can study the basis and history of modern theories and then make educated research into the lierature. And absolutely one must maintain the strctest level of scepticism and doubt with regards to the quality of research. Only after replication and consensus can something be siad to be part of modern science.

Even then it is just a human algorith for the unknowable.

2. As to the possible benfits of alternative therapies , uh it is possible that something could be so complex that it would take an extended time and many people to understand the phenomena. However I would not use this as an excuse to do away with scepticism and the scientific method.

There are three possibilities for any treatment:

a. A treatment may be beneficial to a person, or not beneficial to a person. This can be established through careful recording of all conditions and research. Then the potential benefit can be understood for different populations, a chance for beneficial treatment may be derived.

b. A treatment may be harmful to a person and by the above method a chance of harmful effects may be derived.

c. A treatment may be niether beneficial or harmful to the individual but provide them with a pallitive or supportive effect. So while the treatment might not meet the standard of benefit or harm it may give the person some comfort.

[DangerousBeliefs]

http://i160.exs.cx/img160/3747/brokenrecord1ys.jpg

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
[quote]]I remain doubtful/skeptical. In terms of the placebo effect that somewhat reduces the chances of the medicine being effective but, if the medicine does not rely entirely on the placebo effect (in which case is it really medicine?) then it should be effective nonetheless.

I'm quite loathe to take medicine if I can avoid it anyway. When it becomes clear that a minor illness will not clear-up on it's own I will consult a doctor. If medicine is prescribed, I will immediately research the possible side-effects (ok, I'll read the notes included with the medicine and do a quick search of the internet for information of the medicine). Research permitting, I take my medicine and see what happens. I have never had an adverse reaction to any medicine I have taken but if I did, I would immediately go back to the doctor.

I think, this is perfect approach, you can follow it may be you are known to this field. I also do like that & could get substancial benefits to me & others.(just look at antacids which may be a common mistake. MOM & Aluminium hydroide, one is for constipated person other for clear motion type & wrong prescription may mean somewhat like opposite). But what about common & illitrate men?

I would not try any of the non-toxic or self-healing techniques (unless you include wrapping up warm and getting lots of sleep) for the simple reason that the research shows that the only real effect to be had is the placebo effect. Given my scepticism, the placebo effect is unlikely to be of use to me. Sure, the risk of adverse side-effects is very low with most of these techniques (other than the risk of loss of time and money) but since there is no apparent reason to expect any benefit from them that strikes me as irrelevant. If you can point me to any information which you feel would pass my tests of scepticism, I would be delighted to reconsider.

It is correct to say, in view of that you are following science & scepticism. No doubt, one has to accept most other alt. healings on some faith or belief basis, without solid scientific evidances. It can also result in some 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses'.

It may also be dependent on how big & competent authorities with many means, give importance to any system & how people accept & prefer any therapy. It may also be more difficult & may also require more means, to make any other alt. therapy on equivalent stutus to modern. So why to do all these, when modern-easily provable is available, can be a consideration. But if we want to avoid adverse effects & some adversities-we may have to go very deep in other therapies & standardize these in more disciplined way. .



We would have to look at the evidence for the individual diseases (again, if you can point me to information which you feel would be likely to sway me, given my scepticism, I will be delighted to give it a look - time permitting) but in general the risk/benefit ratio favours modern medicine especially where lack of credulity is likely to count against any placebo effect.

Again, faith, belief, mass observations & practical experiances may only be the basis. Few substances can still be reversed in both --evidance and practical experiance based. Risk/benefit ratio can just on adverse effecs consideration. Btw, should we not give weightage to both these on making this Risk/benefit ratio esp. in non emergencies?


The manner in which these experiences occured and observations were made is extremely important. Human perception has some huge flaws in terms of gathering reliable evidence. So far, scientific method is the best means of compensating for those flaws that I have come across. As a very broad generalisation, I would take it to be the case that if scientific tests and studies repeatedly fail to confirm a phenomenon we can provisionally deny the existence of that phenomenon just as we would provisionally accept the existence of that phenomenon were the converse true.[quote]

You are right, if we accept scientific evidances as only & preferable basis. But many substances still fail/reversed on practical experiances & on time testing in common public, inspite all advanced tests & studies. So both can be important considerations.



[quote]I think that what you are expressing here is, in principle, not too different from my own position that knowledge is provisional. I think we differ in the level of confidence we require in order to treat a theory as knowledge for practical purposes. To my way of thinking, there are an infinite number of potential ideas and theories. Given this, one could not possibly give time to all of them thus I require logical consistency and a high level of evidence before I will treat a theory as (provisional) knowledge. Generally speaking, I would be even less inclined to take experimental drugs than I would be to take a homeopathic treatment, for example. [/B]

Yes. All these can deped on inividual's personal preferances & experiances.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[quote]Kumar, Hiya!

It seems that i can sort two basic themes in your posts.

1. Should we remain sceptical of modern science/medicine?

2. Is it possible that the sceptical approach does not address the ways in which alternative therapies are useful?

I think, 2nd one is not clearly translated. Anyway, it also made much sense.

To the first, it is essential that any one recieving medical treatment be knowledable of that treatment, one should undertsand the doctor's assesment and diagnosis, and the rationale behind the prescribed treatment. One should also know what the potentail adverse effects of any treatment might be. Then as treatment progresses the consumer maty make informed choice as to wether the treatment is beneficial ot ineffective, also as to wther the treatment has enough benefit to outwiegh any adverse effects.

Onto science, the results of modern science are acsessible to the average person, anyone can study the basis and history of modern theories and then make educated research into the lierature. And absolutely one must maintain the strctest level of scepticism and doubt with regards to the quality of research. Only after replication and consensus can something be siad to be part of modern science.

Even then it is just a human algorith for the unknowable.

Yes, it should be the right approach, considering the risks involved esp. in less serious & with no emergencies type cases. But, can common individals do all these homeworks? Most probably, most people may find harm/benefit assesment, at end of treatments or at end of their health/life.

2. As to the possible benfits of alternative therapies , uh it is possible that something could be so complex that it would take an extended time and many people to understand the phenomena. However I would not use this as an excuse to do away with scepticism and the scientific method.

There are three possibilities for any treatment:

a. A treatment may be beneficial to a person, or not beneficial to a person. This can be established through careful recording of all conditions and research. Then the potential benefit can be understood for different populations, a chance for beneficial treatment may be derived.

b. A treatment may be harmful to a person and by the above method a chance of harmful effects may be derived.

c. A treatment may be niether beneficial or harmful to the individual but provide them with a pallitive or supportive effect. So while the treatment might not meet the standard of benefit or harm it may give the person some comfort.

As of now, much of the alt.systems can be belief/faith based with personal experiances & observations. It survive on 'least adversities involved' basis. Whereas, modern system is based on scientifically defined evidances, continuing process of practical experiances & time testings, with some or many side, adverse & toxic effects, possibilities. It can be personal choice & preferance, what & which one chooses. Risks & benefits are involved in both. To a common person, I think type of disease, emergencies involved etc., can be the important deciding factors.

[Zep]

Throg, I like your practice essays. Nice neat paragraphs, good spelling, coherent thoughts, etc. I think you will do well in class this year!

[Throg]

Originally posted by Zep
Throg, I like your practice essays. Nice neat paragraphs, good spelling, coherent thoughts, etc. I think you will do well in class this year!

I always did well in class , thanks but it's been a good ten years since I got my degree so I'm really done practicing. Did you have a point, or just a problem with coherent thought?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Throg
I always did well in class , thanks but it's been a good ten years since I got my degree so I'm really done practicing. Did you have a point, or just a problem with coherent thought? No, no problem at all. You, however, have not met all of Kumar yet, I fear. So I fear your literary skills will be all but wasted. He is, as we say in the trade here, an A-grade, tuberculin-free, unrestructured, revisionist, card-carrying troll.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Zep
No, no problem at all. You, however, have not met all of Kumar yet, I fear. So I fear your literary skills will be all but wasted. He is, as we say in the trade here, an A-grade, tuberculin-free, unrestructured, revisionist, card-carrying troll.

Actually, I've read through a lot of Kumar's posts and I understand why you might consider him a troll. It is one possible interpretation. The other possible interpretation is that he is someone with a different philosophical, social and liguistic background to me which presents certain communication difficulties for us.

If the former is the case then, so what? It's still an intellectual work-out for me and maybe we can learn something even from trolls (if only at an anthropological level).

If the latter is the case then, perhaps with a little extra effort, we can learn something from each other. If not, I still get my work-out. Where's the downside.

Incidentally, as you probably gathered, my first impression of you was that you were a troll. See how we can all make mistakes?

[Kumar]

Zep, Try to understand, now. Throg could understand me, really right. Although homeopathic looks unscientific as yet, even to me (therefore digging so deep), but practical experiances do not make me & other using it, fully convinced, that it is just a placebo effect. I know when its science will be known, it may go out of hands of homeopathic community, but in real sense, it can also be a great benefit to humanity in terms of costs & adversities.

My true wish & goal is that;

"Science of potencies esp. TRS, could be known AND, modern system & TRS in systematic & diciplined manner, works together for the true service to humanity"

I am trying very hard for this, you are also welcomed & solicited. Just don't misunderstand me that, I am an enemy of modern system/s & advocate of TRS/homeopathy. I respect goods of all knowledges (even bads also, in some deep understandings).

Good wishes for that.

[Jocce]

Originally posted by Kumar
Although homeopathic looks unscientific as yet, even to me (therefore digging so deep), but practical experiances do not make me & other using it, fully convinced, that it is just a placebo effect.

Practical experiences under controlled circumstances are ignored by you and everyone else who believes in Homeopathy. Ignoring those results (that show Homeopathy to be a big fake) doesn't make it more of a cure.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Throg
Actually, I've read through a lot of Kumar's posts and I understand why you might consider him a troll. It is one possible interpretation. The other possible interpretation is that he is someone with a different philosophical, social and liguistic background to me which presents certain communication difficulties for us.

If the former is the case then, so what? It's still an intellectual work-out for me and maybe we can learn something even from trolls (if only at an anthropological level).

If the latter is the case then, perhaps with a little extra effort, we can learn something from each other. If not, I still get my work-out. Where's the downside.

Incidentally, as you probably gathered, my first impression of you was that you were a troll. See how we can all make mistakes?
You're not the only one to have that viewpoint, at least at first. It is my experience that Kumar wears people down. People like Rolfe, ThirdTwin, Goshawk, geni, etc. used to seriously reply to Kumar. He wore them down, now seldom do they reply to him.
You'll notice that Kumar will take a few words out of what you reply and use them, sometimes in completely new ways. But you'll also notice that he never taks any of the ideas you give him. He already has his ideas set in stone, he's just looking for a way to confirm them.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Jocce
Practical experiences under controlled circumstances are ignored by you and everyone else who believes in Homeopathy. Ignoring those results (that show Homeopathy to be a big fake) doesn't make it more of a cure.

Can't controlled circumstances be wrogly interpreted/calculated? We may notice lot of adversities inspite of all controlled evidances, on practical experiances & time testings. Is it not correct? Suppose you take sunlight just for fraction of second, can you measure it--as measurable effect, inspite you know about Vit.D. Some minute but long term progressive effects may not be easily measurable eg; colour therapies effects, but we can't ignore colour's WLs with their energies, do interact with us.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Donks
You're not the only one to have that viewpoint, at least at first. It is my experience that Kumar wears people down. People like Rolfe, ThirdTwin, Goshawk, geni, etc. used to seriously reply to Kumar. He wore them down, now seldom do they reply to him.
You'll notice that Kumar will take a few words out of what you reply and use them, sometimes in completely new ways. But you'll also notice that he never taks any of the ideas you give him. He already has his ideas set in stone, he's just looking for a way to confirm them.

I understand your point but so far I have not observed this to be the case in my current discussion with Kumar. Besides, I always kind of admired Don Quixote.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Throg
I understand your point but so far I have not observed this to be the case in my current discussion with Kumar. Besides, I always kind of admired Don Quixote.
OK then, welcome to windmil-fighting capital of the Internet :) Out of my thousand posts, probably 700-800 have gone into fighting this particular windmill.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
Out of my thousand posts, probably 700-800 have gone into fighting this particular windmill.

Which I always requested/asked/insited to avoid...means 'this & that' type of talks.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
I think, this is perfect approach, you can follow it may be you are known to this field. I also do like that & could get substancial benefits to me & others.(just look at antacids which may be a common mistake. MOM & Aluminium hydroide, one is for constipated person other for clear motion type & wrong prescription may mean somewhat like opposite). But what about common & illitrate men?


I would not like to guess exactly where the "common" man's abilities lie in terms of being able to rationally evaluate evidence but I accept your point that there are going to be people who lack the critical faculties to evaluate such evidence. I do not have a solution to this on an individual basis. On a societal scale, those of us who do possess suficient critical faculties can try to ensure that our governments employ proper methods of evaluation and control of medicines on their behalf.

It is, of course, just as important that alternative therapies are evaluated just as rigorously as modern medicines and the "common man" is just as disadvantaged with respect to selecting safe and effective alternative therapies (insofar as their are any - I'm still only aware of acupuncture) as modern medicines.

No doubt, one has to accept most other alt. healings on some faith or belief basis, without solid scientific evidances. It can also result in some 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses'

This is where the problem lies with alternative therapies, from my point of view. In practical terms, what is the difference between 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' and 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence'?

It may also be dependent on how big & competent authorities with many means, give importance to any system & how people accept & prefer any therapy.

It's really not a great argument in favour of alternative therapies to say that no big and competent authorites have found them to be effective. You might argue that large-scale trials could overturn the negative results of small-scale trials with respect to alternative therapies but the problem is this: even the richest countries in the world have limited resources and have to chose where to spend them; it makes logical sense to preferentially apply limited resources to large-scale trials of treatments which have shown positive results and which have support in terms of established scientific theory and a logical mechanism. To adopt a generally policy of testing and re-testing every putative remedy regardless of negative results in small-scale trial and lack of logic to explain why the remedy might work would drastically reduce the amount of money available to be spent developing those remedies with the best chance of helping people. Is there a possibility that we will miss out on some obscure remedies this way? Yes, it's possible but it's the lesser of evils. The alternative would likely hurt more people through lack of funding for conventional therapies than would ever be helped through the discovery of efficacy in therapies mistakenly identified as worthless in small-scale studies.

Risk/benefit ratio can just on adverse effecs consideration. Btw, should we not give weightage to both these on making this Risk/benefit ratio esp. in non emergencies?

Absolutely. I should have made it clearer: risk/benefit analysis means analysing the probability of and seriousness of adverse effects and the probability and efficacy of beneficial effects.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Donks
OK then, welcome to windmil-fighting capital of the Internet :) Out of my thousand posts, probably 700-800 have gone into fighting this particular windmill.

Thanks. I'll let you know when I've fallen off my horse one too many times.

[flume]

I have to say that it's Kumar himself who reminds me of Don Quixote.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
I would not like to guess exactly where the "common" man's abilities lie in terms of being able to rationally evaluate evidence but I accept your point that there are going to be people who lack the critical faculties to evaluate such evidence. I do not have a solution to this on an individual basis. On a societal scale, those of us who do possess suficient critical faculties can try to ensure that our governments employ proper methods of evaluation and control of medicines on their behalf.

It is, of course, just as important that alternative therapies are evaluated just as rigorously as modern medicines and the "common man" is just as disadvantaged with respect to selecting safe and effective alternative therapies (insofar as their are any - I'm still only aware of acupuncture) as modern medicines.

It's really not a great argument in favour of alternative therapies to say that no big and competent authorites have found them to be effective. You might argue that large-scale trials could overturn the negative results of small-scale trials with respect to alternative therapies but the problem is this: even the richest countries in the world have limited resources and have to chose where to spend them; it makes logical sense to preferentially apply limited resources to large-scale trials of treatments which have shown positive results and which have support in terms of established scientific theory and a logical mechanism. To adopt a generally policy of testing and re-testing every putative remedy regardless of negative results in small-scale trial and lack of logic to explain why the remedy might work would drastically reduce the amount of money available to be spent developing those remedies with the best chance of helping people. Is there a possibility that we will miss out on some obscure remedies this way? Yes, it's possible but it's the lesser of evils. The alternative would likely hurt more people through lack of funding for conventional therapies than would ever be helped through the discovery of efficacy in therapies mistakenly identified as worthless in small-scale studies.

Absolutely. I should have made it clearer: risk/benefit analysis means analysing the probability of and seriousness of adverse effects and the probability and efficacy of beneficial effects.

Thanks, your above reply has made position of both modern & alternative systems, crystal clear. It is good & justified that future possibilities are not absolutely denied by you.

This is where the problem lies with alternative therapies, from my point of view. In practical terms, what is the difference between 'unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' and 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence'?

'Unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' may mean that effects are noted/found but these may not be systematic observable effects. Whereas, 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence' can mean--no effects are ever noted/found.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
Thanks, your above reply has made position of both modern & alternative systems, crystal clear. It is good & justified that future possibilities are not absolutely denied by you.



'Unclear & uncertain benefits & losses' may mean that effects are noted/found but these may not be systematic observable effects. Whereas, 'no benefits & losses according to the evidence' can mean--no effects are ever noted/found.

If benefits and losses are not systematically observable how can one ever come to the conclusion that they are likely to be caused by theraputic method one supposed to cause them rather than from extraneous factors for which one has not controlled?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
If benefits and losses are not systematically observable how can one ever come to the conclusion that they are likely to be caused by theraputic method one supposed to cause them rather than from extraneous factors for which one has not controlled?

Yes, that is a problem & main reason to confusions in these systems.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Kumar
Yes, that is a problem & main reason to confusions in these systems.

Hey, I have a suggestion for how to resolve this confusion!

Why don't we take a position of presumptive skepticism towards these "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" until and unless someone can find a way to making the benefits and losses more clear. Or, at least until someone can find a way of reliably distinguishing the "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" from those expected by the random processes of mere chance?

That way we can be confident that any proposed therapeutic method really does have the effects that its proponents claim!

I'm liking this idea!

[Throg]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Hey, I have a suggestion for how to resolve this confusion!

Why don't we take a position of presumptive skepticism towards these "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" until and unless someone can find a way to making the benefits and losses more clear. Or, at least until someone can find a way of reliably distinguishing the "unclear and uncertain benefits and losses" from those expected by the random processes of mere chance?

That way we can be confident that any proposed therapeutic method really does have the effects that its proponents claim!

I'm liking this idea!

It's so crazy it just might work!

[MRC_Hans]

Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor": Unless you absolutely love to read your own writing (like me), try to make your posts as short as possible. As you have already noticed, Kumar's command of English leaves some to be desired (speaking as a non-native English speaker, myself), and first of all, he will have real difficulties reading your long and eloquently crafted posts. Secondly, his track record unfortunately indicates that he does not make too much of an effort on long texts of any kind. Instead he appears to skim them, scavenging whatever bits suit his purpose.

I am also one who hasn't given up entirely on Kumar yet. There have been slight (and, unfortunately, fleeting) glimpses of changing positions. So I suppose he is still a mountain to climb.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago.

Hans

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor":

He, himself is well capable & may not take advices unless personally experiances. He may not want to lean on slippery slopes.:)

.....:D that he does not make too much of an effort on long texts of any kind. Instead he appears to skim them, scavenging whatever bits suit his purpose.

Are you telling qualities or defects of me?

I am also one who hasn't given up entirely on Kumar yet. There have been slight (and, unfortunately, fleeting) glimpses of changing positions.

That is a BIG THOUGHT.

So I suppose he is still a mountain to climb.

No, I want to remain on plains, why to climb than crash, fall or step down. One can't live more, high on mountains.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago.

That is yours private language.:)

[Throg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Throg, one advice from a very seasoned "Kumar interactor": Unless you absolutely love to read your own writing (like me), try to make your posts as short as possible. As you have already noticed, Kumar's command of English leaves some to be desired (speaking as a non-native English speaker, myself), and first of all, he will have real difficulties reading your long and eloquently crafted posts.

I understand your point but I would kind of feel like I wasn't speaking in my own voice if I simplified my use of English (thanks for saying "eloqently crafted" rather than "verbose and florid"). I would prefer to trust that Kumar will ask for clarification if I put things in a way that is unclear.

I gather from your writing style, and from your information about your age that you are not another Trog (sans h), from your country, whom I knew on the internet long ago

No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Throg
He, himself is well capable & may not take advices unless personally experiances

Actually, I'm always open to advice. One of the great advantages of language is that we don't have to rely purely on first-hand experience (imagine how little any of us could hope to learn if that was the only way we could learn.)

No, I want to remain on plains, why to climb than crash, fall or step down. One can't live more, high on mountains

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Throg
I understand your point but I would kind of feel like I wasn't speaking in my own voice if I simplified my use of English (thanks for saying "eloqently crafted" rather than "verbose and florid").

Mmm, I have been accused of irony at times. Still....

I would prefer to trust that Kumar will ask for clarification if I put things in a way that is unclear.

You will know when he totally misinterprets what you wrote (not that THAT takes a complex post ;) ).

No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

Well, that Trog was short for Thomas Rogers (as I found out), so including the h would not be surprising. Nevertheless, unless being a distinct case of a split personality, you are definitely not him, heheh. Your first forum? Wellcome! Not a bad place to start, except, you will never get away.

Actually, I'm always open to advice. One of the great advantages of language is that we don't have to rely purely on first-hand experience (imagine how little any of us could hope to learn if that was the only way we could learn.)

So right you are.

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

In that case, you will love debating with Kumar ;).


Hans

[Throg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Your first forum? Wellcome! Not a bad place to start, except, you will never get away

I've noticed.

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image

In that case, you will love debating with Kumar


I doff my cap to thee.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Throg
No, this is the first internet forum in which I have ever posted and "Throg" has nothing to do with Trog. I once misheard the word frog in the title of an episode of "Ripping Yarns" as Throg. I just like the sound of it and I though it had a pleasing lack of meaning attached to it.

Oh, darn.

And here I thought I was going to be able to ask you the answer to a lifelong quest: How the heck did the Throg's Neck Bridge in New York get its name, what the heck is a Throg and do they have necks?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg

I remember reading a book on Yogic mysticism in which it was suggested that we should view the path to enlightenment as climbing a mountain with no peak. We never reach the top but, with a little effort, we always progress. I always rather liked that image.

It can be both right & wrong. Why you want to climb a mountain? Either to reach on peak or just tracking. To reach on peak is a goal--a destiny or a purpose. Just tracking may be alike trolling--no goal--no destiny or no purpose. How can you think of climbing without goal or purpose. It may be thought in modern sense, where nothing is previously thought & taken as 'can't persist or "absolute", but I think, without an ultimate purpose/goal & direction in mind--all you can, just troll or wonder aimlessly or just for tracking. Why we want to go onto the mountains? Can we live/stay there for long? Is it just an adventure, entertainment, tracking or trolling?

I am not sure but Yogic mentionings may be related to "to attain salvation", where mountains(materials things), miught have shown as can have no peak.

Sorry, if I am wrong.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
It can be both right & wrong. Why you want to climb a mountain? Either to reach on peak or just tracking. To reach on peak is a goal--a destiny or a purpose. Just tracking may be alike trolling--no goal--no destiny or no purpose. How can you think of climbing without goal or purpose. It may be thought in modern sense, where nothing is previously thought & taken as 'can't persist or "absolute", but I think, without an ultimate purpose/goal & direction in mind--all you can, just troll or wonder aimlessly or just for tracking. Why we want to go onto the mountains? Can we live/stay there for long? Is it just an adventure, entertainment, tracking or trolling?

I am not sure but Yogic mentionings may be related to "to attain salvation", where mountains(materials things), miught have shown as can have no peak.
Sorry, if I am wrong.


There is no concept of salvation in the Yogic mysticism represented in the book to which I refer. Enlightenment is viewed as it's own reward and while one can never attain perfect enlightenment it is rewarding to achieve ever greater enlightenment. As a sceptic, I equate this with attaining ever greater though always imperfect knowledge and understanding. No destiny is implied and a one of the main points of the journey is the journey itself. In mountain-climbing terms, you climb the mountain "because it's there".

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Donks
You're not the only one to have that viewpoint, at least at first. It is my experience that Kumar wears people down. People like Rolfe, ThirdTwin, Goshawk, geni, etc. used to seriously reply to Kumar. He wore them down, now seldom do they reply to him.I was looking at some old Kumar threads the other day, and it was really quite embarrassing the way I assured him I understood how sincere he was, and bust a gut trying to explain simple concepts of biochemistry in terms I thought he might understand. Still, we all make mistakes.

I still find myself admiring the sheer singleminded bloodymindedness of it all. This must be the most prolonged no-slip-up troll in the entire history of the Internet. (To be fair, my suspicion isn't that Kumar was a troll from the get-go, just that he has long since realised the utter bankruptcy of his position and has for some time now simply been winding us up by seeing how long he can keep playing this particular stuck record.)

His utter imperviousness to acquiring ordinary English usage is another hallmark of the wind-up. He repeated something several posts back which he has said several times before. It's a fairly sensible statement to the effect that perhaps, if one is suffering form a mild, self-limiting ailment, it might be better to avoid taking any drugs at all, and so avoid any chance of suffering from side-effects. However, can Kumar state it like that? No chance. It's all about "adversities" and "least adversities" and the rest of his perpetual gobbledegook. If he hasn't figured out by now what the accepted terms are for what he's trying to talk about, there's no hope.

I think he's actually too self-centred to notice that his vocabulary isn't the words other people use, and change accordingly. He just uses the words he's decided to use, and the rest of us can go figure.

Well, I've had enough.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I was looking at some old Kumar threads the other day, and it was really quite embarrassing the way I assured him I understood how sincere he was, ..

No, Kumar really does believe that the things he dreams up are great insights. 26/50 votes i.e. 52.00%.

Is Kumar winding us up? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54372&highlight=rolfe)

People belived in this. They do really understand me well. Thanks, it has raised my confidance in others. I think, I also voted for this in the begning. You see, how accurate are my calculations. Btw,what you had desired to get & voted for?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
There is no concept of salvation in the Yogic mysticism represented in the book to which I refer. Enlightenment is viewed as it's own reward and while one can never attain perfect enlightenment it is rewarding to achieve ever greater enlightenment. As a sceptic, I equate this with attaining ever greater though always imperfect knowledge and understanding. No destiny is implied and a one of the main points of the journey is the journey itself. In mountain-climbing terms, you climb the mountain "because it's there".

Throg,

Good saying. I think, it is related to Buddism philosphy. How can you differenciate between Enlightenment & salvation/Nirvana/Libretion/Moksha?

While surprised to read your above referance, it indicate no destiny/goal BUT perfectly matches with scepticism & modern attitude i.e. "one can never attain perfect enlightenment". I call it as "absoluteness", which is never agreed by skeptics & pro-modern systems people. Salvation...is also one kind of "absoluteness", which is indicated in some mythology, as "can't be attained during current age". I don't see any 'The End' to it.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Kumar
Throg,

Good saying. I think, it is related to Buddism philosphy. How can you differenciate between Enlightenment & salvation/Nirvana/Libretion/Moksha?


My understanding of salvation is that it implies that one is saved from something. I will admit that these may be a product of my primarily Christian culture.

Nirvana has always seemed to me a concept which is open to a virtually endless range of interpretations; the closest I can come to understanding spiritual enlightenment from my sceptical point of view, is something like moral understanding which I suspect is a very poor fit.

Libretion is a completely new term to me so I can't comment.

Moksha is certainly part of the belief-system of the Yogic mysticism with which I am familiar. I should make it clear, that I do not share any of the beliefs of Yogic mysticism I merely find the imagery pleasing and motivational. To me enlightenment is about acquiring knowledge and understanding and acting in accordance with that understanding. There is no mystical dimension to my version of enlightenment.

While surprised to read your above referance, it indicate no destiny/goal BUT perfectly matches with scepticism & modern attitude i.e. "one can never attain perfect enlightenment". I call it as "absoluteness", which is never agreed by skeptics & pro-modern systems people. Salvation...is also one kind of "absoluteness", which is indicated in some mythology, as "can't be attained during current age". I don't see any 'The End' to it.

I think one of the reasons that you encounter resistence amongst sceptics to your use of the term "absoluteness" is that it is probably not a very good translation of what you are trying to say. It has mystical connotations in our culture which are going to cause a lot of us to switch off before we give much attention to what you are trying to say. In general, I think it is a bad idea to try and reduce complex ideas to a single word such as absolutness even in one's own primary language but when you try to do it in another language you just don't know what cultural baggage your'e going to end up with.

The only mythology I am familar with in which salvation "can't be attained during current age" is that of the various Yugas in Hinduism (I think we are supposed to be living in Kali Yuga). Are there mythologies with a similar structure?

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Throg
My understanding of salvation is that it implies that one is saved from something. I will admit that these may be a product of my primarily Christian culture.

Salvation means deliverance from the power and effects of sin. I think, "Salvation/Nirvana/Libretion/Moksha" all are same. The real meaning of this can be;

'to free your soul & body from all bondages, as bondages may be real cause of existances in bonded, arrested, concentrated or combined conditions instead of complete free & independant state--so real reason of pain/sin etc.

Nirvana has always seemed to me a concept which is open to a virtually endless range of interpretations; the closest I can come to understanding spiritual enlightenment from my sceptical point of view, is something like moral understanding which I suspect is a very poor fit.

a Nirvana should be salvation, & enlghtwnments is final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering & to provide (someone) with moral or spiritual understanding or enlighten people from this ultimate knowledge. In one language this ultimate knowledge is called as "Keval-gyan".

Libretion is a completely new term to me so I can't comment.

It is also alike salvation, means libretion of soul & body from all bondages.

Moksha is certainly part of the belief-system of the Yogic mysticism with which I am familiar.

Alike salvation, libretion, nirvana only.

I should make it clear, that I do not share any of the beliefs of Yogic mysticism I merely find the imagery pleasing and motivational. To me enlightenment is about acquiring knowledge and understanding and acting in accordance with that understanding. There is no mystical dimension to my version of enlightenment.

Yes, it is ok, but people just like these, directly or indirectly



I think one of the reasons that you encounter resistence amongst sceptics to your use of the term "absoluteness" is that it is probably not a very good translation of what you are trying to say. It has mystical connotations in our culture which are going to cause a lot of us to switch off before we give much attention to what you are trying to say. In general, I think it is a bad idea to try and reduce complex ideas to a single word such as absolutness even in one's own primary language but when you try to do it in another language you just don't know what cultural baggage your'e going to end up with.

I think, it is natural that people here don't like this word "absoluteness" i.e. free from imperfections due to 'current age/yuga' effects & entitlements. It is alike "GOD", "SALVATION", Enlightenment etc. which are ultimate.

The only mythology I am familar with in which salvation "can't be attained during current age" is that of the various Yugas in Hinduism (I think we are supposed to be living in Kali Yuga). Are there mythologies with a similar structure?

Yes, you are right.:). In Kaliyuga(present age), "salvation can't be attained" & "true basic knowledge of sastras(reputed books) can't be known/understood by "Brahmanas"(Learned people)". @nd one is by a curse of Godess Laxmi(Godess of money & luxuary)--which can mean, Due to the effect of money & luxuries, true basic knowledge can't be known by learned people. However, some exceptions are there to these mentionings. I feel & find, somewhat alike it.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
No, Kumar really does believe that the things he dreams up are great insights. 26/50 votes i.e. 52.00%.

Is Kumar winding us up? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54372&highlight=rolfe)

People belived in this. They do really understand me well. Thanks, it has raised my confidance in others. I think, I also voted for this in the begning. You see, how accurate are my calculations. Btw,what you had desired to get & voted for? Ah. Of course. Kumar believes that opinion polls actually determine the truth. If mass.... existing.... declare that Kumar is sincere, that of course proves it is true!

I see the good grammar fairy struck again, troll.

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
No, Kumar really does believe that the things he dreams up are great insights. 26/50 votes i.e. 52.00%.

Is Kumar winding us up? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54372&highlight=rolfe)

People belived in this. They do really understand me well. Thanks, it has raised my confidance in others. I think, I also voted for this in the begning. You see, how accurate are my calculations. Btw,what you had desired to get & voted for?
I voted for you being sincere. But I don't see how this should raise your confidence in anyone. That I think you are sincere in no way means I think you are right about anything. The alternative to you being an utter troll is you being an utter fool, I don't know why you are so happy with that position.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
I voted for you being sincere. But I don't see how this should raise your confidence in anyone. That I think you are sincere in no way means I think you are right about anything. The alternative to you being an utter troll is you being an utter fool, I don't know why you are so happy with that position.

When mass people, may be of any communty, interact with any one, may be in whatever type, for long--shows something different & dynamic, is/can be there, you accept or not. If not, then they can be indicating themselves & others, as fool, troll, with no other work, aimless, without any goal/destiny or otherwise. So just don't put your own words in your name. WHY so much & for too long interactions were/are/will prefered or practiced inspite, every told repeatedly in past? Don't comment/insult, as bad, to what you eat, take or experiance regularily--for so long & so much? People don't appreciate these by heart/brain, as their sixth sense, inherited real natural knowledge/logic/GOD etc. may be indicating somethig dynamic/possible. By mouth, it may not be of much importance, as it can be a formal/dim/apperant/illusion/ego/vested interest Etc.

So just give a natural thought to it & behave accordingly, to avoid loss. Don't comment this post, furthur.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
When mass people, may be of any communty, interact with any one, may be in whatever type, for long--shows something different & dynamic, is/can be there, you accept or not. If not, then they can be indicating themselves & others, as fool, troll, with no other work, aimless, without any goal/destiny or otherwise. So just don't put your own words in your name. WHY so much & for too long interactions were/are/will prefered or practiced inspite, every told repeatedly in past? Don't comment/insult, as bad, to what you eat, take or experiance regularily--for so long & so much? People don't appreciate these by heart/brain, as their sixth sense, inherited real natural knowledge/logic/GOD etc. may be indicating somethig dynamic/possible. By mouth, it may not be of much importance, as it can be a formal/dim/apperant/illusion/ego/vested interest Etc.

So just give a natural thought to it & behave accordingly, to avoid loss. Don't comment this post, furthur.

Too bad the grammar fairy didn't hit this post. There are much better ways to say this, something like:
"Agree with me or shut up."

[Throg]

Originally posted by Donks
Too bad the grammar fairy didn't hit this post.

Donks, this is bordering on bigotry. Kumar has made it quite clear that his primary language is similar to Hindi which has a very different grammar to English. He posts in our language as best he can and you fault him for this. To disagree with his reasoning or his ideas is one thing but to pick on him because of his foreignness is pitiful.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Throg
Donks, this is bordering on bigotry. Kumar has made it quite clear that his primary language is similar to Hindi which has a very different grammar to English. He posts in our language as best he can and you fault him for this. To disagree with his reasoning or his ideas is one thing but to pick on him because of his foreignness is pitiful. The point I think Donks and others have been making here is that Kumar appears to be able to post in perfectly intelligible English when he wants to, but doesn't do this most of the time. There was an idea that the intelligible bits were cut and pasted from other sites, but a couple of his recent posts are so specific to their context that he must have written them himself. His ability to write intelligible English often seems to be in inverse proportion to the amount of pressure his current argument is under.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Mojo
The point I think Donks and others have been making here is that Kumar appears to be able to post in perfectly intelligible English when he wants to, but doesn't do this most of the time. There was an idea that the intelligible bits were cut and pasted from other sites, but a couple of his recent posts are so specific to their context that he must have written them himself. His ability to write intelligible English often seems to be in inverse proportion to the amount of pressure his current argument is under.

Why I will write in un-intelligible English or with language errors? It appears, there is some problem of putting comas. Moreover, I have to manipulate, be serious, check & recheck, in case of serious replies--which I try best. Sometimes there is a big load due to many people interacting with me at one time OR sometimes I am in hurry. Lastly, sometimes & am not so serious due to 'this & that type' talks or just waste of time--so I just take it lightly. But one thing is correct as Throg has indicated that English is my foreign language & I have to manipulate, think, correct it in case of serious replies. Just see how much editing I do.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Mojo
His ability to write intelligible English often seems to be in inverse proportion to the amount of pressure his current argument is under

Which would make perfect sense. My French and German go completely to pieces when I'm under pressure.


Actually, my English suffers too and that is my primary language.

[Rolfe]

It's more complicated than that. He seems to be able to post non-contentious comments quite well, but constantly dresses his wild and woolly theories up in the most bizarre and impenetrable terminology. One thing which would help a lot would be simply to figure out how to express the concepts he repeats like a broken record in mutually understandable vocabulary. But he never does. I'm beginning to think he's being deliberately obfuscatory in order not to have to give in and learn anything.

His English is also significantly better on the homoeopathy believers boards.

Frankly, I've given up. In the past I've spent a great deal of time explaining basic scientific concepts to Kumar. I've looked things up in books (about silica in the body, among other things) and typed them out for him. I've recommended useful text-books he could read to get the sort of basic knowledge he needs before he can meaningfully tackle the things he's attempting to tangle with.

No joy. He refuses to learn, even to read anything, because he's afraid he might read something that would weaken his faith in his ideas (yes, he did say this). He comes here only to demand that we find scientific explanations for the delusions he refuses to relinquish. Nothing will make him examine the possibility that his delusions might be just that.

If we explain how the things he believes are impossible, and how he is mistaken, then this is our "miss" or "weakness", usually due to "vested interests". Kumar demands that we stop these negative discussions, and have only positive ideas based on the unquesitoning premise that he is right.

I'm still amused by following his persistence, but I won't waste any more time under the delusion that he wants to learn anything.

But don't let that stop you. Please carry on.

Rolfe.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
It's more complicated than that. He seems to be able to post non-contentious comments quite well, but constantly dresses his wild and woolly theories up in the most bizarre and impenetrable terminology.

Well, as this thread is the only time I have interacted with Kumar, this is the only one I can really comment on. I will say that I have had very little difficulty understanding him though I think it is clear we have very different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.

One thing which would help a lot would be simply to figure out how to express the concepts he repeats like a broken record in mutually understandable vocabulary

Do you really think the onus is entirely on Kumar to find a "mutually understandable vocabulary"? Given that you find the word mutual worthy of inclusion, doesn't that imply that some of the effort should come from us. The alternative, that it is entirely down to "the foreigner" to make himself understood is ethnocentric at best.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Throg
Well, as this thread is the only time I have interacted with Kumar, this is the only one I can really comment on.I really think you should have a look at a few of the many other threads during which Kumar has driven most of us into consulting our ignore lists. There are a couple going on in the Science forum right now.

He's been in much the same place for about a year and a half. TRS "works". Yes, it does. No, it is not possible to contemplate that this might not be so, due to mass....existing.... (If you need a translation of that last bit, apply to Kumar.)

It is your duty to tell me the science of how it works. Please tell if is bit relevant.

We then go round the wacky idea for many pages, until Kumar gets tired and gives up, and surfaces ten minutes later with a new thread either about the same wacky idea (but of course all the discussion we've already had doesn't count, and he hopes that there might be some newbies who won't notice), or a new one.

"Cephalic phase effect" was a good one for a while - he even got as far as posting on the H'pathy board that he [I]knew that was how remedies work. "Part excitations" is a newer one.

Earlier today, on one of the Science Forum threads, he posted an extremely basic biochemistry question about energy sources in the body. Understanding that aspect of biochemistry is of course an absolute pre-requisite for any of the theories Kumar is peddling. But he hasn't a clue. He has asked before, and people have tried to tell him. They have also pointed him to books where he could read all about it. He actually said he didn't want to study in case he learned things that would contradict his beliefs. However, apparently he can hear all sorts of things here that contradict his beliefs, with no problem, because he just ignores them, or calls them "this&that type discussions", which in Kumar speak means talking pointless sense.

Now, after a sufficient time has passed, he's just popped up with the same basic question again, obviously hoping that he'll get an answer he likes better, or can be better twisted to suit his ends. Well, I've stopped playing. He can go read a book, or make it up for himself. I'm not typing any more basic science for him not to read.

But don't let me stop you, feel free....

Rolfe.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I really think you should have a look at a few of the many other threads during.

I don't intend this to be insulting or dismissive but, really, why should I care? So long as he interacts with me in a meaningful way on this particular occasion why should it matter to me if he does not always do so?

There are times when I am utterly incapable of interacting with people in a meaningful way (lack of sleep, abundance of alcohol spring to mind). At other times I am quite capable of interacting in a meaningful way. If I come across Kumar when he appears to be sleepy or drunk (philosophically speaking) then I won't try to have a discussion with him. When his posts seem sober and his voice is unslurred, why not have a discussion with him?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Throg
Donks, this is bordering on bigotry. Kumar has made it quite clear that his primary language is similar to Hindi which has a very different grammar to English. He posts in our language as best he can and you fault him for this. To disagree with his reasoning or his ideas is one thing but to pick on him because of his foreignness is pitiful. Quite. And that is not what people do. The picking comes mainly for two reasons:

1) Kumar's command of English is very context sensitive; when he really wants to get a message through, or, like in your case, finds someone he wants to communicate with, he writes a fairly good and understandable English. When he is cornered, and his arguments have been shredded, he writes gibberish.

2) Kumar is not just a poor English speaker, he is also an extremely sloppy writer. While I basically agree that what he has one prior to your interactions with him is irrelevant to you, I can tell you that a number of Kumar's misspellings and silly wordings have persisted for over a year. It is one thing to have a poor command of English, but to insist on misspelling words, in spite of corrections, is sloppy at best, provokative at worst.

However, do form your own opinion. Just don't say you weren't warned. You have a long climb ahead of you ;).

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Throg
I don't intend this to be insulting or dismissive but, really, why should I care? So long as he interacts with me in a meaningful way on this particular occasion why should it matter to me if he does not always do so?

There are times when I am utterly incapable of interacting with people in a meaningful way (lack of sleep, abundance of alcohol spring to mind). At other times I am quite capable of interacting in a meaningful way. If I come across Kumar when he appears to be sleepy or drunk (philosophically speaking) then I won't try to have a discussion with him. When his posts seem sober and his voice is unslurred, why not have a discussion with him? It's your time, feel free. If you don't want to learn from the bitter experience of people who approached Kumar with that attitude 18 months ago, that's your prerogative.

Our comments were intended as a friendly warning. Pass the popcorn, someone. :D

Rolfe.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Throg
Donks, this is bordering on bigotry. Kumar has made it quite clear that his primary language is similar to Hindi which has a very different grammar to English. He posts in our language as best he can and you fault him for this. To disagree with his reasoning or his ideas is one thing but to pick on him because of his foreignness is pitiful.
Sorry you feel this way. In my view, Kumar gets what he deserves. He has treated me and many others in quite a bit more insulting ways than that.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Throg
I don't intend this to be insulting or dismissive but, really, why should I care? So long as he interacts with me in a meaningful way on this particular occasion why should it matter to me if he does not always do so?

There are times when I am utterly incapable of interacting with people in a meaningful way (lack of sleep, abundance of alcohol spring to mind). At other times I am quite capable of interacting in a meaningful way. If I come across Kumar when he appears to be sleepy or drunk (philosophically speaking) then I won't try to have a discussion with him. When his posts seem sober and his voice is unslurred, why not have a discussion with him?

Throg, while thnking you, I must accept/comment that, you have strong immunity.:)

Have you heard about "Tulsidas" story? He was very anxious to meet his wife in her house & was involved in her, too much. By got irritated by that, she said, if you could have dedicated/devoted so much in GOD, probably you could get his grace & it would have done all of your good. By feeling that, he started involved in religion & written most famous & reputed work even today--Ramayna. Alike, if few people here, who are involved in contradictions, back bitings, blaiming/claiming, this & that types of talks, could got involved in real dynamic & matrialistic type of talks, mostly, they could have got & given less or more to others. I don't understand, what they gain from this unless some vested interests are there.

Anyway I know, we can't stop basic methodlogy of GOD of creation, maintainance & destructions to balance the nature, for which HE might have divided all of us, grossly, in these three groups & made our constitutional mentalities, accordingly. I therefore, don't mind & back bite, usually, in view of this, as I understand some of HIS calculations-- astrologically, spritually, homeopathically(TRS) or otherwise.

Inspite of my appx. 15 months trial, I couldn't get awnser of simple biochemisty question from Rolfe, how mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis? Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis. Whatever Rolfe & I say, is beyond our heads or just do this & that discussions etc. So, we just left interacting with each other much, but still, I do try on some suitable atmosphere. I have so many topics of his/her interest, but I just ignore. :(

[Throg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Quite. And that is not what people do. The picking comes mainly for two reasons:

1) Kumar's command of English is very context sensitive;

Of course it is. So is mine and so is yours but we each get lots of practice using English everyday. We are very good at using English. It's like we began learning the rules from the moment we were born and incorporating them at the most fundamental level of the learning process. ;) When the standard of our English slips because of an unfamiliar context, we go from very good to able.

I am merely o.k at speaking French and German. I can get by and even participate in conversations so long as the subject matter is not too esoteric or complicated. Once I try to express complex thoughts, especially abstract ones I begin to sound like I've had large portions of my brain removed. French and German are languages that have a great deal more in common with English than Hindi does.

Maybe you are an exceptionally talented polyglot such that you lack sympathy for the enormous problems that expressing complex ideas in a foreign language presents for most people. Not everyone is so gifted.


When he is cornered, and his arguments have been shredded, he writes gibberish

You mean when he's under pressure and taking his ideas to limits he had not previously considered? That is exactly what one should expect of someone using a foreign language.

Kumar is not just a poor English speaker, he is also an extremely sloppy writer

There is no way to judge one independently of the other. Your reference to Kumar being a poor English speaker again suggests a startling lack of sympathy for his position. That will be down to your innate linguistic facility again, I imagine. I repeat, we are not all so gifted.

I can tell you that a number of Kumar's misspellings and silly wordings have persisted for over a year. It is one thing to have a poor command of English, but to insist on misspelling words, in spite of corrections, is sloppy at best, provokative at worst

Trivial and ironic given your misspelling of the word "provocative".

[Throg]

Originally posted by Rolfe
It's your time, feel free. If you don't want to learn from the bitter experience of people who approached Kumar with that attitude 18 months ago, that's your prerogative.

Our comments were intended as a friendly warning. Pass the popcorn, someone. :D

Rolfe.

I try never to learn from the experiences of bitter people. By definition, they lack objectivity.

Your warnings did not seem particularly friendly. Perhaps you intentionally miscommunicated what you were apparently trying to communicate. There's a lot of it going around.

[Throg]

Originally posted by Donks
Sorry you feel this way. In my view, Kumar gets what he deserves. He has treated me and many others in quite a bit more insulting ways than that.

Really? What is more insulting than assuming that one's own language and culture are innately superior to someone else's.

[flume]

Although I don't like the insults, I think you're missing the point of the grammar fairy insult - or at least the point as it was originally used. Some people in the past have suspected Kumar of being a false identity for, say, a young man in the US who is stringing everyone along. When they think his English improves, they suggest that he has forgotten to post in his supposed fake accent. So the grammar fairy comment was not originally meant to be a slur on anyone's native language but to suggest that he is a fake identity. It is still an insult, and I dislike it. But it was a personal insult, calling him a troll, rather than a culturally related one.

I have never thought that Kumar is a false identity. He seems consistent to me in his posting style. I think I can understand his posts pretty well. I think we have had some good communications.

The comment he made about Rolfe not being able to explain his tissue salts, though, is irritating because people have tried carefully and politely to clarify this several times. If he himself could produce any information on these experiments he wants explained, it would be a whole lot easier to explain them.

[MRC_Hans]

Cool. Let's derail this thread.


Originally posted by Throg
Of course it is. So is mine and so is yours but we each get lots of practice using English everyday.

So does Kumar. He posts as much as I do.

We are very good at using English.

Thank you!

It's like we began learning the rules from the moment we were born and incorporating them at the most fundamental level of the learning process. ;)

I didn't. My native language is Danish.

When the standard of our English slips because of an unfamiliar context, we go from very good to able.

Or, we refer to a dictionary.

I am merely o.k at speaking French and German.

Spanish, German, Swedish, Norwegian for me.

French and German are languages that have a great deal more in common with English than Hindi does.

Except of course, that English is an official language in India.

Maybe you are an exceptionally talented polyglot such that you lack sympathy for the enormous problems that expressing complex ideas in a foreign language presents for most people. Not everyone is so gifted.

Maybe. Or I feel that if you can use a language well some of the time, you should be able to do it all of the time.

You mean when he's under pressure and taking his ideas to limits he had not previously considered? That is exactly what one should expect of someone using a foreign language.

In speach, yes. In writing, where you have all the time you need to proof-read, no.


There is no way to judge one independently of the other. Your reference to Kumar being a poor English speaker again suggests a startling lack of sympathy for his position.

The language problem is secondary. Kumar's arrogant refusal to consider anything that doesn't support his beliefs is primary.

That will be down to your innate linguistic facility again, I imagine. I repeat, we are not all so gifted.

Not important. Asking for knowledge and advice, and subsequently ignoring it or misrepresenting it IS important.

Trivial and ironic given your misspelling of the word "provocative".

Well, in my language, k=c.

Hans

[Throg]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Cool. Let's derail this thread.
Hans

I think that was done when the first set of insults began.

So does Kumar. He posts as much as I do
That does not come close to constituting lots of practice.

I didn't. My native language is Danish

Congratulations, you write English better than most natives do. There's no hidden meaning in that, by the way.

Or, we refer to a dictionary
Dictionaries offer very little help with grammar or cultural references and can actually be very confusing until you have a great deal of facility with a foreign language.

Spanish, German, Swedish, Norwegian for me
There you go, a polyglot. Most people are not nearly so linguistically capable and we have no right to expect them to be.


Except of course, that English is an official language in India
Which is by no means the same as it being widely used much less widely used in the way we use it.


Maybe. Or I feel that if you can use a language well some of the time, you should be able to do it all of the time
That's just a basic misunderstanding of human psychology, then.

In speach, yes. In writing, where you have all the time you need to proof-read, no
I never proof-read my posts in this forum. If you do, I congratulate you on your good habits and wish I had so much time to spare. You are being rather simplistic, however, if you think that proof-reading is going to be particularly helpful unless you already have considerable facility in a particular language.

The language problem is secondary. Kumar's arrogant refusal to consider anything that doesn't support his beliefs is primary
I have no problem with you taking anyone to task on the latter point.

Not important. Asking for knowledge and advice, and subsequently ignoring it or misrepresenting it IS important
You'll get no argument from me on that.

Well, in my language, k=c
What happened to proof-reading?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Throg
Really? What is more insulting than assuming that one's own language and culture are innately superior to someone else's.
Where did I do that?

Too bad the grammar fairy didn't hit this post. There are much better ways to say this, something like:
"Agree with me or shut up."


Sorry you feel this way. In my view, Kumar gets what he deserves. He has treated me and many others in quite a bit more insulting ways than that.

Those are the my posts that seem to have outraged you. Please point out where I said "Mexican culture is innately superior to Indian culture, and Spanish is innately superior to Hindi."
As flume already pointed out, the source of the grammar fairy insult comes form the belief of many that Kumar is an American teen. While it would not surprise me if he is, I do believe he is not. I think he is Indian, and I also believe that he purposefully changes his command of English to suit his needs. It seems awful convenient that Kumar's English suddenly vanishes the second people point out what's wrong with his latest theory.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Throg
I try never to learn from the experiences of bitter people. By definition, they lack objectivity.

Your warnings did not seem particularly friendly. Perhaps you intentionally miscommunicated what you were apparently trying to communicate. There's a lot of it going around.
You want to know why you have several people warning you about Kumar? Because people get sick and tired of putting a lot of effort on a post, giving lots of information on good faith, and then have Kumar sumarily dismiss all parts of it that don't fit his theory, pretend a portion of it does, and then ask for the whole explanation to be given again.
For instance, while first looking for how water could have memory, someone explained to him that the water molecule could simply store no information, and explained about atoms, and such. From that he decided that that meant that water memory worked through "part excitations." That is, electrons being partly excited, hanging around somewhere between orbits. Again, it was explained how this was not the case. People explained at many levels, from science for kids all the way to college level. From that he got that photons excited electrons, so photons carried the information from the remedy and the atom used part excitations to store it. And this goes on ad infinitum. He never corrects what's wrong, he just uses the explanations to add another level to his theory.

[flume]

Throg, I do agree with your intention not to be concerned with other people's interactions though. I think that is a fine approach.

[Kumar]

Thanks for giving so much but unnecessary attentions towards me. As far as I feel & if I account, I might have tolerated atleast 15:1 insults, backbiting 'this & that etc. The reason is not science but my dislike of contradictions on any mass...knowledge esp. homeopathy. These people looks to be allergic esp. to homeopathy--don't know for what interest? But they don't see my idea about Crudes+Potencies, inspite my repeated indications. Sometimes, I feel, some of then are made, just to oppose all except science. Others systems had given & can furthur give clues/base/seed to science for most 'yet unclear aspects' to construct or grow these furthur & clear from these basics.

I am just trying best to end 'this & that' type of interactions, but still provokations leads me to same state--as I just hate contradiction on any mass....knowledge esp. with least adversities. Good & bad points alike half filled glass, can be there in every knowledge, then why to see half filled for yourselve & half empity for others. Is it not "selfishness" or keeping other thirsty. Behave like a Thirsty Crow" not alike "Fox & the Grapes".:)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Throg
Really? What is more insulting than assuming that one's own language and culture are innately superior to someone else's.
As an Indian who speaks Hindi, I can attest to the fact that almost everyone here has been extraordinarily patient with Kumar and his fractured English. When he started posting here months ago, many people, most notably Hans and Rolfe, went out of their way to politely and repeatedly explain simple scientific concepts to him in easy English. He would ignore their sincere attempts and instead attribute all scientific facts that did not agree with his pet theories to "vested interests/misses". Since you seem to have joined the forum quite recently, I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to his incredibly impenetrable cranium - a facet of his character that has no relevance whatsoever to his command over English or the lack thereof. I can quite assure you that Kumar would quickly become an object of ridicule even on a Hindi Skeptics forum.

If Kumar were being discriminated against on the basis of his language problems and if his honest and intelligent arguments were being brushed aside because of his imperfect syntax, I would have been the first person to protest. However, the digs (including Hans' fairy tale) that are now being made at his grammatical mangling are simply digs at the entire 'Kumar persona' and not towards any single aspect of his personality.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Kumar's problem is not his lack of proficiency at English. It's his lack of logic and scientific training. He would be laughed out of any Hindi intellectual discussion.

Try reading through one of Kumar's early Homeopathy threads.

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vikram
As an Indian who speaks Hindi, I can attest to the fact that almost everyone here has been extraordinarily patient with Kumar and his fractured English. When he started posting here months ago, many people, most notably Hans and Rolfe, went out of their way to politely and repeatedly explain simple scientific concepts to him in easy English.

What a big lie? Have they not contradicted any time & tried to degrade me on this ground? Are you an Indian contradicting an ?????? Asean?:D What we call it?

He would ignore their sincere attempts and instead attribute all scientific facts that did not agree with his pet theories to "vested interests/misses".

Do you mean I should accept everything & don't present my dynamic/logical doubts & clarifications?

Since you seem to have joined the forum quite recently, I'm guessing you haven't been exposed to his incredibly impenetrable cranium - a facet of his character that has no relevance whatsoever to his command over English or the lack thereof. I can quite assure you that Kumar would quickly become an object of ridicule even on a Hindi Skeptics forum.

Dynamism & realities are often radiculed & nailed, as we in kalyuga may not be entitled for these. However, he may not need advice, as quite immune & inteligent to calculate & understand, himself.

If Kumar were being discriminated against on the basis of his language problems and if his honest and intelligent arguments were being brushed aside because of his imperfect syntax, I would have been the first person to protest. However, the digs (including Hans' fairy tale) that are now being made at his grammatical mangling are simply digs at the entire 'Kumar persona' and not towards any single aspect of his personality.

Imperfect syntax, from whose side? Questions are of mine, I should be convinced & satisfied.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Kumar's problem is not his lack of proficiency at English. It's his lack of logic and scientific training. He would be laughed out of any Hindi intellectual discussion.

Not so wrong, I have mentioned non-technical in your system in my signature

Try reading through one of Kumar's early Homeopathy threads. :(

Throg, just look at manipulation "early Homeopathy threads.??:D

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Thanks for giving so much but unnecessary attentions towards me.

Now that you mention it ;).

As far as I feel & if I account, I might have tolerated atleast 15:1 insults, backbiting 'this & that etc.

Depends on what you mean by insults. You are mostly polite, but your repeated ignoring of carefully given answers to your questions is really much more insulting that the mostly good humoured ridicule you are the target of.

The reason is not science but my dislike of contradictions on any mass...knowledge esp. homeopathy.

Partly right. First of all, it is not "any" mass...etc. It is only selected parts of mass ideas you endorse so vigorously. Others, many of wich are far older and have been more widespread than homeopathy, you reject together with the rest of us.

Secondly, it is about science. Many of our reactions are due to your constant misrepresentations of science.

These people looks to be allergic esp. to homeopathy--don't know for what interest?

For the interest of truth. All observations indicate that homeopathy does not work.

But they don't see my idea about Crudes+Potencies, inspite my repeated indications.

Because it doesn't make sense. It is just a hypothesis you have dreamed up to fit your beliefs. There is nothing to support it, and it isn't even logically consistent.

Sometimes, I feel, some of then are made, just to oppose all except science.

See? This comes after hundreds of posts where we have patiently tried to explain simple and basic scientific concepts to you. This is, IMO, such a deep insult that it easily outweigh 15 little jabs at you.

Others systems had given & can furthur give clues/base/seed to science for most 'yet unclear aspects' to construct or grow these furthur & clear from these basics.

They certainly can, but not from being accepted at face value. Only if we are prepared to take them apart and analyze them.

I am just trying best to end 'this & that' type of interactions, but still provokations leads me to same state--as I just hate contradiction on any mass....knowledge esp. with least adversities. Good & bad points alike half filled glass, can be there in every knowledge, then why to see half filled for yourselve & half empity for others. Is it not "selfishness" or keeping other thirsty. Behave like a Thirsty Crow" not alike "Fox & the Grapes".:)

Yada, yada. :rolleyes:. You know, just leaving out this nonsense would make your posts much clearer.

And to Throg:

I guess you must realise that our interactions with Kumar have developed over a long time. You can go in and get your own experiences, but do not judge our ways of doing this unless you know the background.

For instance, his references to "back biting" come from some time back when he told people on other forums that he had discussed things here and pretended that he had found support for his ideas. I then posted in the same places and contradicted him, and he cam back here and accused me of "back-biting".

Also, Kumar has not always been as polite as he currently is. He has not been above reporting others to administrators, spamming the forum with silly google links and other trolling methods.

Hans

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Throg
Congratulations, you write English better than most natives do. Heh, indeed.
I see mostly phonetic errors in posts by native speakers. Like ending a word in "-ative" in stead of "-itive", "there" instead of "their" or "they're", or someone, probably from the southern US, who wrote that something or other "didn't make since".
It has always amazed me how English has such ludicrous pronunciation rules for words like though, through, trough and tough, whereas you could write infallibe, infallable or infalloble without noticeably changing the pronunciation. :con2:
I can see how anyone would have trouble writing English.
Me? I just watched too much English television when I was a kid.

Anyway, carry on. :D

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Now that you mention it .

So don't waste more time, by 'this & that'.

Depends on what you mean by insults. You are mostly polite, but your repeated ignoring of carefully given answers to your questions is really much more insulting that the mostly good humoured ridicule you are the target of.

No, it is big misunderstanding. Why I shall do, when I want to gain knowledge? Whatever I do is not ignoring you, but is ignoring un-clear tellings to me. WhateverIF & BUTS( note; not 'this & that'), I put, that is to clear something not ignoring & insulting.

Partly right. First of all, it is not "any" mass...etc. It is only selected parts of mass ideas you endorse so vigorously. Others, many of wich are far older and have been more widespread than homeopathy, you reject together with the rest of us.

Every mass....concept can have some logic behind it for some good in that. But if few, with some vested interests, misunderstandings/misinterpretations or ignorance deviate the real meaning of it--it can't be taken as discredit to that system. Eg; sleeping pills are made for good, but if some people take excess of these or become addictive & suffer, it can't be said as discredit of system(but can be, why such things are made, homeopathy/other systems take care somewhat for such misutilization/adiction;) )

Secondly, it is about science. Many of our reactions are due to your constant misrepresentations of science.

Do You just want to repeat or read?
For the interest of truth. All observations indicate that homeopathy does not work.

But they don't see my idea about Crudes+Potencies, inspite my repeated indications.

...of science community not by much of homeopathic community.

Rests are just repeations or this & that. I have to take care for such this & thats, in future accordingly, for best/materialistic/energetic utilization of my & your time.

Throg, you can take your own decision accordingly. Thanks for mentioning the truths without formalities. All/most of these people still interact with me in tons.;)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Depends on what you mean by insults. You are mostly polite, but your repeated ignoring of carefully given answers to your questions is really much more insulting that the mostly good humoured ridicule you are the target of.

No, it is big misunderstanding. Why I shall do, when I want to gain knowledge? Whatever I do is not ignoring you, but is ignoring un-clear tellings to me.

Unfortunately, that is not true. You are indeed ignoring things that don't fit your ideas. Just take "part exitations": How many times have you been told they don't exist? And how many times have you kept bringing them up, nevertheless?



Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
What a big lie? Have they not contradicted any time & tried to degrade me on this ground?Kumar, you get contradicted because you post ideas that are clearly wrong, and in contradiction of well established scientific theories. Just because you are contradicted, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is any intent to insult you. In fact, I would consider it more insulting if people humoured you by going along with your completely wrong theories.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
how mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.I don't expect an answer any more, but I'll try once again.

Kumar, who did this analysis? Was it Schüssler himself, or did he take somebody else's results? What were the methods used? Where were the experiments done, and when? What were the results obtained, in detail - or where can I read these results? As regards the crematorium analysis you have referred to, was it only the body that was burned, or were there grave-clothes and fuel as well? What about intestinal contents, and could there have been any fillings in the teeth?

You keep talking about these amazing results which you claim allowed Schüssler to work out an entire system of remedies, but you have never been able to show us the results so that we can look at the evidence for ourselves. So, how do I know that "mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies" if you can't show me the figures?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I don't expect an answer any more, but I'll try once again.

Kumar, who did this analysis? Was it Schüssler himself, or did he take somebody else's results? What were the methods used? Where were the experiments done, and when? What were the results obtained, in detail - or where can I read these results? As regards the crematorium analysis you have referred to, was it only the body that was burned, or were there grave-clothes and fuel as well? What about intestinal contents, and could there have been any fillings in the teeth?

You keep talking about these amazing results which you claim allowed Schüssler to work out an entire system of remedies, but you have never been able to show us the results so that we can look at the evidence for ourselves. So, how do I know that "mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies" if you can't show me the figures?

Rolfe.

This is just childish talk. Do you think that when scientist analyse, they include tubes, bottles etc. in sample. Whoever had analysed the humans ashes, he was science person & you can't expect that he had included cloths, dusts etc. in samples. Furthur, whether Dr.Sch. had analysed or got details from science books, is immaterial for us. I just want to know that when most of inorganic biochemicals, present in our body in their ionic forum, how got analysed in somewhat similar salts--as tissue salts on dry ash/burned analysis?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Kumar
This is just childish talk. Do you think that when scientist analyse, they include tubes, bottles etc. in sample. Whoever had analysed the humans ashes, he was science person & you can't expect that he had included cloths, dusts etc. in samples.

In other words, you don't know whether or not he did.

[thaiboxerken]

My simple answer is this:

Science IS organized skepticism. :D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
This is just childish talk. Do you think that when scientist analyse, they include tubes, bottles etc. in sample. Whoever had analysed the humans ashes, he was science person & you can't expect that he had included cloths, dusts etc. in samples. Furthur, whether Dr.Sch. had analysed or got details from science books, is immaterial for us. I just want to know that when most of inorganic biochemicals, present in our body in their ionic forum, how got analysed in somewhat similar salts--as tissue salts on dry ash/burned analysis? Kumar, what is "childish" is the way you go on asking us to explain these analytical results you claim were obtained around 1870, and yet can't produce the evidence!

I don't know that "mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis" unless you can show me the reports of the findings. If Schüssler got figures from books, which books were these? If he did the analyses himself, where are the results recorded? Why do you assume that these things happened when you have no information other than vague hearsay about it?

You don't even know who did the analysis, or when, never mind what the methods used were. You assume that the work was done by "science-person", but you cannot know that. In the 1870s there were many amateurs playing around with scientific experiments and we cannot know how well the analyses were performed unless we see the records of what was actually done. Have you any idea at all how difficult it is to ash a substantial piece of animal tissue without any fuel or combustible material in the system?

As I told you, I have actual scientific papers from around 1890 describing some analyses of horse urine and sweat for minerals and electrolytes. The author tried to describe the methods he used, but even though he was a professor the science was in such an early state that there is a lot of ambiguity. It's also very clear that the methods he had available were crude and inaccurate compared to what we have today, and that he inevitably included some dust and other contaminants with his samples.

I tried to compare his results to my results from 100 years later on similar analyses, but I found that due to the differences in methods and the units used it wasn't very meaningful. That work is regarded as of merely historical interest nowadays, because nobody is using it as a base for any current practices. Nevertheless, the data were there for me to have a go at making sense of it in scientific terms.

Now, if you were able to show me similar published scientific work relating to Schüssler's theories, I could look at the results in the same way as I looked at Smith's results and see how much sense there was to be made of them. But you can't show me where to find the data. Well, no data, no meaningful discussion I'm afraid.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Just give me a simple reply, whethe there will be some substances in molecular/compound or in salt form, on anylysing dry/burned ash from human parts or any other living- say plants in some similar proportion or not?

I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies. You may consider also read book as flume has indicated.

If you don't have technology or discarded old technology, to chenck presence in salt forms, you can tell accordingly.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies.By good old-fashioned guesswork, perhaps? You may consider also read book as flume has indicated. :id:

[flume]

I don't know any more about the chemistry than when I posted before. But I am going to suggest some assumptions.

Assume that the scientists who produced these results (such as Bunge) did do careful analysis using the methods of their time and only analyzed the tissues they were interested in. (No cloth or wood contaminants etc.)

But also assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now, so they still had some contamination, probably some extra silicon from their grinding equipment.

Assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now and they missed some minerals. (This is obviously true, and was even mentioned in the books.)

Assume that Schuessler did not worry about the exact or relative amounts of the minerals in the ash anyway - this was mentioned in one of the books, that he valued some salts even though their amount in the tissue was lower than other salts.

Assume that the 19th century scientists did measure the main tissue minerals with a certain accuracy- these would be the ones that are measured in most foods: sodium, potasssium, calcium, magnesium, phosphates, sulfur, chloride, iron - that make up most of the ash. Most of the elements that are included in Scuessler's group are the ones that make up almost all the ash of the body.

Assume that if you took the amounts of kali phos and natrum phos and calcium phos, etc., reported in a tissue by Bunge, and you calculated the total amounts of calcium, sodium, phosphate etc. and compared them to our values for the individual measures of calcium, sodium and phosphorus in each tissue, that they were not too far off.

(Also assume that we currently are able to analyze the amounts of compounds formed in ash if we need to, but do not normally do that analysis on food or tissue ash because it does not have any useful information. It might be useful in other fields like geology or forensics.)

Assume that some tissues have different proportions of the main minerals from other tissues. Certainly cells have higher potassium inside than sodium, and liquids like plasma have higher sodium and less potassium. Muscles might have higher iron than some other tissues like skin.

But also, consider that the analysis of Bunge etc. might not have been accurate enough to get this difference between tissues exactly right.

Assume there are in fact salts in the ash of burned tissue.

Assume that Bunge etc. were able to measure roughly the amounts of those salts, so that when they said there was , for example, magnesium phosphate in the ash, they were correct.

Does this agree with the implications of your questions? I'm giving Bunge (or whoever's work Schuessler used) as much credit as possible, but also trying to be reasonable about their limitations.

Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.

[Donks]

Originally posted by flume
The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.
Which diseases are supposed to be caused by the "imbalance" of these salts?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just give me a simple reply, whethe there will be some substances in molecular/compound or in salt form, on anylysing dry/burned ash from human parts or any other living- say plants in some similar proportion or not?See Flume's excellent posts on this matter.Originally posted by Kumar
I have previously given referances & analysis as mentioned in "Twelve Tissue Remedies". Whether Dr.Sch, himself done the analysis or taken out from referances is not clear. But he could know it & therefore specified 12 tissue remedies. If he would had not got it, how could he would had introduced these 12 remedies. You may consider also read book as flume has indicated.You seem to know nothing at all about the theory behind your beliefs. You have not previously given any references to any analysis, so if you have such a thing, please post it now.

You seem to be saying that you don't know what Schüssler measured or did, but he must have done something valid because he based the tissue remedies system on it. Hey, how about he just made it up? The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever, and if you want us to consider that there could be some sense in it, you have to be able to explain the theory and show the data on which the theory was based. So far, you have failed miserably.Originally posted by Kumar
If you don't have technology or discarded old technology, to chenck presence in salt forms, you can tell accordingly. I note that in spite of many attempts by people to explain it to you, you still do not understand the difference between a salt, an ion and an element.

So, how about you stop trying to tell us about this TRS nonsense until you are actually in a position to explain what it is, including the theory and the data on which the theory was based.

Rolfe.

[flume]

Actually, Kumar did post some values at one point in some other topic. I think they probably are the numbers from this book., "The Twelve Tissue Remedies of Schuessler" by Dewey and Boericke. They give some values from the Textbook of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry by Bunge (aka von Bunge). In this section they don't actually say how Bunge did the analysis or whether it was based on ash.
In 1000 'grammes' of blood cells, the amount of inorganic substances:
iron=0.998
Kali sulph=0.1322
Kali mur.=0.132
Kali phos.=3.079
Natrum phos.=2.343
Natrum=0.344
Calc. phos.=0.094
Magnes. phos.=0.o6o
In 1000 grammes of intercellular fluid(plasma) the inorganic
material is:
Kali sulph.=0.281
Kali mur.=0.359
Natrum mur.=5.545
Natrum=1.532
Calcar. phos.=1.532
Magnes. phos.=0.298
Natrum sulph, Fluor., and Silica, traces
Milk (1000 g):
kali=0.780
Natrum=0.230
Calcarea=0.330
Magnesia=0.060
Iron=0.004
Phosphoric acid=0.470
Chlor=0.440
Fluor and Silica=traces

(could be typos)

Notice that in the section on milk, the values are for single elements or ions, not for compounds.

[Kumar]

flume,

You posted two excellent posts. TRs can make any person to do something good.;)

..Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium...

Any activity or function can be dependent of force & energy, taken or released on any chemical reaction. I assume that some specific chemical reactions takes place resembling to indicated tissue salts composition on association & disassociation of chemical bonds as per these salts. Specific energy is released as per these specific reactions which may effect specifically. You can differenciate in energy changes on any change in carbs molecule & of Sodium cloride molecule.

Pls assess accordingly.

Btw, you mentioned, you can do salt/compound analysis from ash. Can you tell me how & whether it existed since Bunge's time?

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Your problem is that inspite of encouraging & contributing to any other knowledge, you start finding faults on some 'yet unclear' points may be due to pre-concieved idea about same. I don't think you can get any new/dynamic knowledge, by your this problem. I have provided many links & referances to gain some basic knowledge on this system. Flume got some refrances & now can contribute. If you wanted, you could also got. Just try to interact as some others are doing i.e. contributing more contadicting/firing less alike a teacher or friend. Just consider as of now & in present status of science-- we have a system, some mass people observed & experianced it as positive(incl me) with least adversities, It also somewhat resemble with our chemistry. Dr.Sch. got some indications by looking at body's chemistry & taken some gemstones out of so many clour stones in homeopathy & given us even by diverting from his academic carrier & profession(as he was M.D.. of that tim).Some physical effects by reflected lights & by our direct exposures can be thought even these are not/least composed to our body....Accordingly we may check half filled not empity glass.

Sorry, If I am wrong. But I want this type of interactiona with me.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Your problem is that inspite of encouraging & contributing to any other knowledge, you start finding faults on some 'yet unclear' points may be due to pre-concieved idea about same. I don't think you can get any new/dynamic knowledge, by your this problem. I have provided many links & referances to gain some basic knowledge on this system. Flume got some refrances & now can contribute. If you wanted, you could also got. Just try to interact as some others are doing i.e. contributing more contadicting/firing less alike a teacher or friend. Just consider as of now & in present status of science-- we have a system, some mass people observed & experianced it as positive(incl me) with least adversities, It also somewhat resemble with our chemistry. Dr.Sch. got some indications by looking at body's chemistry & taken some gemstones out of so many clour stones in homeopathy & given us even by diverting from his academic carrier & profession(as he was M.D.. of that tim).Some physical effects by reflected lights & by our direct exposures can be thought even these are not/least composed to our body....Accordingly we may check half filled not empity glass.

Sorry, If I am wrong. But I want this type of interactiona with me.
Okay, let's try that attitude with you.
We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using cell salts, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that cell salts cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper cell sat remedy. The other is simply water. To one group we give the cell salt, to the other we give the water. But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

Kumar, what do you think will happen? Which group will get better quicker?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
Okay, let's try that attitude with you.
We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using cell salts, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that cell salts cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper cell sat remedy. The other is simply water. To one group we give the cell salt, to the other we give the water. But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

Kumar, what do you think will happen? Which group will get better quicker?

It may be 1000th time repetition type question. Person should bother about of got treated or not, cost & advesities. People experiancing it found accordingly--so only using these. They also don't find these alike water. Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by science & should if interests the same. Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water.

[Kumar]

Chemical Composition of Humans

Dry weight %

Carbon... 61.7
Nitrogen.. 11.0
Oxygen.. 9.3
Hydrogen... 5.7

Calcium.. 5.0
Phosphorus.. 3.3
Potassium.. 1.3
Sulfur.. 1.0
Chlorine.. 0.7
Sodium.. 0.7
Magnesium.. 0.3

Trace amounts of B, F Si, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Cu, Zn, Se, Mo, Sn, I.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00432.htm

Elemental Composition of the
Human Body
oxygen 43 kg
carbon 16 kg
hydrogen 7 kg
nitrogen 1.8 kg

calcium 1.0 kg
phosphorus 780 g
potassium 140 g
sulfur 140 g
sodium 100 g
chlorine 95 g
magnesium 19 g
iron 4.2 g
fluorine 2.6
zinc 2.3 g
silicon 1.0 g

http://web2.iadfw.net/uthman/elements_of_body.html

The above data indicate elemental/chemical composition of human body. If we take lactose underconsideration as part of remedy, most of tissue salts cover most of elements(95%+) in human body. Why Dr.Sch. not considered Nitrogen, Zinc & other trace elements, may be not either noted on ash analysis or not given much importance due to any reason. Probaby, if 95% problems are handled balance may itself be taken care by body due to its improved streangth by this 95% consideration. It may also be due to some miss or weakness of science at that time. Some more about 30 cells salts were indicated by some other people after Dr.Sch. but whether these were valid or not as per Dr.Sch. thinking, it can't be said. But one think is indicative, Dr.Hahn. had covered some more remedies resembling body's composition which Dr.Sch. had definitely studied. But whether he has considered or not in his system is just a thought but by this, it looks he may not had cinsidered those intentionally.

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by flume

But also assume that their methods were less accurate than ours now, so they still had some contamination, probably some extra silicon from their grinding equipment.

I don't think grinding is involved in this analysis. Even involved, these are simple understandings & any science person will definately take care of these things. Moreover, silicon, fluorine as silicic acid & fluoride are indicated as trace element in recent datas, also.

Assume that Schuessler did not worry about the exact or relative amounts of the minerals in the ash anyway - this was mentioned in one of the books, that he valued some salts even though their amount in the tissue was lower than other salts.

It is bit a thougt to me also. Why Dr.Sch. consedered Silicon & Fluorine & not Nitrogen, Zinc etc. I think he was knowing(by reading, by inderstanding or by provings) OR otherwise (can't expect, probably as I think by our direct exposures), the mode of action & effect of these two elements(may be Sulphur also).

Assume that the 19th century scientists did measure the main tissue minerals with a certain accuracy- these would be the ones that are measured in most foods: sodium, potasssium, calcium, magnesium, phosphates, sulfur, chloride, iron - that make up most of the ash. Most of the elements that are included in Scuessler's group are the ones that make up almost all the ash of the body.

Yes, then?

Assume that if you took the amounts of kali phos and natrum phos and calcium phos, etc., reported in a tissue by Bunge, and you calculated the total amounts of calcium, sodium, phosphate etc. and compared them to our values for the individual measures of calcium, sodium and phosphorus in each tissue, that they were not too far off.

These are to be measured as per parts of body as they noticed.

(Also assume that we currently are able to analyze the amounts of compounds formed in ash if we need to, but do not normally do that analysis on food or tissue ash because it does not have any useful information. It might be useful in other fields like geology or forensics.)

We have to find--how it can be useful information esp. if there can be spontaneous chemical reactions in accordance with these salts, involved in body's parts, to get some energy changes effects OR moving these near the skin to get somewhat light effect.


Assume that some tissues have different proportions of the main minerals from other tissues. Certainly cells have higher potassium inside than sodium, and liquids like plasma have higher sodium and less potassium. Muscles might have higher iron than some other tissues like skin.

Ok, then what?

But also, consider that the analysis of Bunge etc. might not have been accurate enough to get this difference between tissues exactly right.

Absolute accurecy may not be of much importance as these were used to know just the indications of specific salts. However, I feel, physiology of that time indicated, reactions & effects as per salts not all as per ions/elements.

Assume there are in fact salts in the ash of burned tissue.

Assume that Bunge etc. were able to measure roughly the amounts of those salts, so that when they said there was , for example, magnesium phosphate in the ash, they were correct.

Does this agree with the implications of your questions? I'm giving Bunge (or whoever's work Schuessler used) as much credit as possible, but also trying to be reasonable about their limitations.

Now explain why it makes any difference at all what compounds were found in the ash.

It makes lot of difference as I already indicated, in term of specific energy levels & patterns related to specific compound/salt--if specific chemical reactions are there as per salts. Ash analysis indicate affinity of some some elements/cation to some specific anion.

The ash is nothing like the real tissue. Salts are formed in the ash because the organic material is burned up and the water is evaporated. What matters is the amounts of the individual elements in the tissues, like calcium or potassium.

As above. Even in ionic form in tissue, TRs may effect in line of effects by these ions, individually as Na+Cl, in case of Natrum Mur, homeopathically. NaCl salt found specifically in any part, for example, indicate specific presence of Na+Cl ions in any part.

[Kumar]

Abundances of the Elements in the Earth's Crust

Approximate
% by weight

Oxygen 46.6
Silicon 27.7
Aluminum 8.1
Iron 5.0
Calcium 3.6
Sodium 2.8
Potassium 2.6
Magnesium 2.1
All others 1.5

Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.


Gas Name/ Chemical Formula/ Percent Volume

Nitrogen N2-- 78.08%
Oxygen O2-- 20.95%
*Water H2O-- 0 to 4%
Argon Ar-- 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2-- 0.0360%
Neon Ne-- 0.0018%
Helium He-- 0.0005%
*Methane CH4-- 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2-- 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O-- 0.00003%
*Ozone O3-- 0.000004%

* variable gases

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

The above are some of our direct exposures. Sunspended particles & other contaminations in air & earth can be there. This link tells about suspended particles in air;
http://theweathernetwork.com/features/airq/info/aq_Pollutants.htm

But in view of our exposures since our evolution, what can you grossly think, be our direct exposures?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by scienceThis is precisely what the test described by Donks is designed to find out. Don't you think it would be a good idea to find out if there actually is a real effect before wasting a lot of time trying to work out how the alleged effect occurrs?

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
It may be 1000th time repetition type question. Person should bother about of got treated or not, cost & advesities. People experiancing it found accordingly--so only using these. They also don't find these alike water. Whwther real effect, non-measurable, placebo, self healing, supernatural or otherwise, are yet pending to know by science & should if interests the same. Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water.
I keep asking that question because you still haven't answered it. Including this time.
For all your talk of wanting to use science, when confronted with even the vaguest of scientific approaches you run the other way. Why is that? You know you won't like the answer before you even try?

[Kumar]

Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks. One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again. You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.

I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?

[Kumar]

Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks. One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again. You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.

I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?

Can you tell some other direct major exposures to us?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Mojo,Donks,

Pls don't engage me in this & type of talks.So you consider that asking whether the effects you are so determined to invent an explanation for actually exist to be irrelevant??? One thing is clear that science & working of remedies are still unclear & doubtful in science. Why to discuss & waste time asking this & that about this again & again.Why waste time trying to explain an effect without bothering to find out whether it actually exists? A coherent explanation, assuming you can produce one, will still have no validity in the real world if the effects you are explaining don't exist. You can't make something real merely by describing it.You may discuss & ask, if any concept in science is relevant & can be possible, instead.Concepts that have no basis in fact are, obviously, irrelevant to the real world.I have give some datas relating to our direct exposure. Apart from these, we may also be substancially exposed to Sea water-so salt, trees & their droplets, atmospheric changes due to time chenges, day & night, moon's phages, seasons etc. H2S or other gases relesed by algaes, bacterias erc., Sun light, colours, radiations, civilization's created polutions etc.

Probably, all these of our exposure can effect us due filtred lights, reflected lights, emissions etc. If we look bit dynamically, we can find TRs cover most of these in their elemental compositions. What can it mean?So you are saying that we are exposed to all sorts of things? I wouldn't disagree with that, although I would draw the line somewhere before lunar viruses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage) ;) (sorry, I couldn't resist it), but many of these things have no measurable effect on us. Remember, for example, what you have been repeatedly told about the way light interacts (or rather doesn't interact) with our bodies?

Even if these things do have an effect on us, if we are being continually exposed to them what benefit do you think there could possibly be in exposing ourselves to additional infinitessimal amounts of certain specific substances ?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by flume
Actually, Kumar did post some values at one point in some other topic. I think they probably are the numbers from this book., "The Twelve Tissue Remedies of Schuessler" by Dewey and Boericke. They give some values from the Textbook of Physiological and Pathological Chemistry by Bunge (aka von Bunge). In this section they don't actually say how Bunge did the analysis or whether it was based on ash. I don't remember seeing that before. Quite interesting. We still don't know who did the analysis, or where or when, or what the methods were though. Also, this isn't different body organs or parts of the body, it's erythrocytes and plasma (and I'm not sure where the relevance of the milk comes in).

The most striking feature is the finding that the cellular preparation has potassium as its dominant cation, while the ECF (plasma) has sodium. And of course we know that this is correct. Although there seemed still to be quite a lot of sodium in the cellular preparation, I think we can ascribe that to the fact that a pure cell preparation is impossible to achieve. There will always be the "trapped plasma" between the cells, and you can't wash them in water or you'll get osmotic rupture. (When I've done equivalent analyses to these, I analysed the spun-off plasma separately, then re-analysed a frozen lysate of whole blood. Knowing the PCV, the analysis of the plasma, and the analysis of the lysate, allows the composition of the pure cell fraction to be calculated.)

However, the matching up of cations and anions is purely arbitrary, as the substances certainly wouldn't be present in these forms in the live organism. I wonder why the milk is expressed as ions (I presume) rather than salts?

I can only imagine that the sulphate groups in the analysis came from sulphur-containing proteins. However, fluoride and silica were surely contaminants as these do not occur in plasma to the best of my knowledge.

And does this get us any closer to figuring out why Kumar believes this means anything? I thought his ideas had more to do with analyses of whole bodies or organs, than with body fluids.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Your problem is that ....Kumar, your problem is that you have a completely closed mind. Closed to the possibility that your pre-existing ideas might be worng, but also closed to the possibility of acquiring any new knowledge.

Why should we only discuss with you on the assumption that you're right, when you can't provide the slightest scrap of evidence that there's any more to your precious tissue remedies than coincidental recovery and wishful thinking? Why do you persist in asking science to explain something that doesn't exist, when you constantly reject any suggestion that you might learn something from science?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

OK, as you feel. I was knowing it. Thaks.

[Dermanus]

You were believing it. Not knowing it.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Donks
I keep asking that question because you still haven't answered it. Including this time.
For all your talk of wanting to use science, when confronted with even the vaguest of scientific approaches you run the other way. Why is that? You know you won't like the answer before you even try?

Haven't I told "Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water." It means healing effects in case of cell salts deending upon several factiors as I indicated & no/placebo/self healing effects in case of water.

Now, let me check;

We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using modern medicines, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that modern medicines cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups say of 10 people each. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper modern medicine & the other is simply blank pills of same appearance & taste. To one group we give the modern medicine, to the other we give the blank pills . But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects. Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected. Both 6 & 4 can also be by placebo, initiated self healing, by self immunities or otherwise. Some noticable side/adverse/toxic effects can also be mistaken as effects, which can also influence this picture. Since, current influences & attunments have created lot of belief in modern systems & also given most of attentions, means, systematic & standardization of observations etc.--it can also effect results, otherwise. Tissue remedies might have also shown somewhat similar or better results, if it would had also taken similarily. So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit. Similarities will have to be maintained for getting somewhat compareble or better results.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Dermanus
You were believing it. Not knowing it.

We, & even skeptics, may give preferance/importance to belief, inspite of fat, not knowing those aspects in exact science eg; in God, in parents, in other relatives, in making big & heavy houses, most modernizations, non absolute medicines & concepts etc. You can think of many many such beliefs. You don't do or accept all things with exact science, but still follow belief, observations & other's experiances. Whether people died in Tsumani, were living with science or without science? Why they believed in Sea? Were Tsumani type things not possible in skeptic's POV? Why many people still live near the sea or with other risks indicated in science? Why you live in big house, can't it fall next movement/day/month by any natural or innatural clamity? Why you travel by air? Can't it crash, scientifically? Probably, you mostly move with belief & just can't move without belief.

Alike, I/we/you move in TRS/other systems/modern systems with some good or bad, some belief or non-belief, some benefits & risks...etc.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Kumar

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects. Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected.



Because if only 4 got better in the placebo setup, but 6 got better in the experimental setup, then we can assume that four of the six in the experimental setup "self-healed," but the other two can be attributed to the experimental regime.

To do it more formally and thoroughly would require some statistics and probably more subjects.

So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit.

Why not? That's exactly what we can -- and should -- do. And as a result, average human life expectancy has skyrocketed since medicine abandoned pseudoscience like tissue salts.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Now, let me check;

We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using modern medicines, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that modern medicines cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups say of 10 people each. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper modern medicine & the other is simply blank pills of same appearance & taste. To one group we give the modern medicine, to the other we give the blank pills . But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects.OK, you've got the idea about how a double-blind test is carried out, although you'd probably need a bigger sample size for reliable results.Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected. Both 6 & 4 can also be by placebo, initiated self healing, by self immunities or otherwise.This is precisely why a control group is used. Both groups are treated in exactly the same way apart from the fact that one group is given the real remedy. This means that the same environmental effects will be present for both groups, and the placebo effect will operate to the same degree in both groups. Remember, the placebo effect will also work on the group given the real remedy.Some noticable side/adverse/toxic effects can also be mistaken as effects, which can also influence this picture.This sort of test is not designed to identify unusual side effects, although if a remedy has substantially worse outcomes than placebo there's certainly a problem with it!Since, current influences & attunments have created lot of belief in modern systems & also given most of attentions, means, systematic & standardization of observations etc.--it can also effect results, otherwise. Tissue remedies might have also shown somewhat similar or better results, if it would had also taken similarily.Indeed they might. So why not test them to see if they actually work before going ahead with wild theorising as to how they might work?So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit.Yes we can.

[Mojo]

Sorry - double post.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
The above data indicate elemental/chemical composition of human body.Why, so they do.

However, Kumar, your statement was thathow mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.That is a completely different statement. You still have not shown any of us what analysis Schüssler was looking at, what specimens of what different parts of the bodies were involved, or that the results showed "mostly similar salts".

How about it?

Flume has posted something which Schüssler might have looked at, but that isn't "different parts of human bodies", it is two different fractions of blood. And the results aren't "somewhat similar", because one fraction was mainly cells and so contained a great deal of potassium, while the other fraction was almost cell-free, and so had relatively little potassium and a great deal of sodium.

But it seems that you would rather insult me than produce your evidence.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Because if only 4 got better in the placebo setup, but 6 got better in the experimental setup, then we can assume that four of the six in the experimental setup "self-healed," but the other two can be attributed to the experimental regime.
To do it more formally and thoroughly would require some statistics and probably more subjects.
Why not? That's exactly what we can -- and should -- do. And as a result, average human life expectancy has skyrocketed since medicine abandoned pseudoscience like tissue salts.

Effects can differenciate on individual basis. We can get such results i.e. 6:4 & 4:6(even 3:6 & 2:6 can also be comparable in view of atterntion & belief difference in case of TRS) in case of TRs applications. If we get this, then probably you will say it is by placebo & not real effects. On this respect pls note seriously & dynamically that "self healings with magnitude initiation" can be most important consideration in healing by any system. Even if, we believe in holy water--which initiate our self healing/immunity--then holy water can be considered as 'medicine/healing substance, not just plain water. Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing.

[Kumar]

Mojo,

Pls look at possibilities that in consideration of 'self healing/immunity or 'initiated self healing/immunity AND individual different effects, any number of positive & negative results can be thought as self healing, placebo or real effects. How to measure real effects without healing consideration, is to be thought. It can be therefore thought, that it can be bit difficlut to measure absolutely in science--whether a real effect, a placebo or a self healing.

Rolfe,

You can ask flume to post ,salts indicated for different parts. I think I have previously given this detail. Anyway, books on this system can be much usefull for you--for knowledge or for discussions.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Effects can differenciate on individual basis. We can get such results i.e. 6:4 & 4:6(even 3:6 & 2:6 can also be comparable in view of atterntion & belief difference in case of TRS) in case of TRs applications. If we get this, then probably you will say it is by placebo & not real effects. On this respect pls note seriously & dynamically that "self healings with magnitude initiation" can be most important consideration in healing by any system. Even if, we believe in holy water--which initiate our self healing/immunity--then holy water can be considered as 'medicine/healing substance, not just plain water. Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing. *sigh*

Kumar, try to understand this concept:

Let us assume that holy water works because our belief in it initiates self-healing.

Now you believe in holy water, so I give you some water, and say: "This is holy water, Kumar, it will heal you." So you feel better. We do this to a large group of people, and they all feel better. Now, what REALLY happened was that only half of them got holy water. The rest got plain unholy tab water. Al lbelieved the same and were treated the same, right? So what is the ONLY difference betwen the groups? The holiness of the water, right? So if the group that really got holy water improve more than the group that only thought they got holy water, then it indicates that holyness of water has an effect. If not, it indicates that only belief matters.

OK?

Edited to add: Oh, and antibiotics don't work by improving our immunity, they actually KILL bacteria. Both antibiotics and vaccines can be shown to work whether you believe in them or not.

Hans

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing.
Antibiotics do not improve our immunity. Antibiotics destroy bacteria and do so even in a dish in a lab. In fact, that's how the first antibiotic was discovered.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
You can ask flume to post ,salts indicated for different parts. I think I have previously given this detail. Anyway, books on this system can be much usefull for you--for knowledge or for discussions. You have never posted this before, in detail or otherwise. In fact, I don't think you have the information at all. If I'm wrong about this, then please link to the post in question, or post the data. This is the very heart of your claims. That mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.Now, show us this analysis that Schüssler looked at, and demonstrate that the results were as you claim.

As far as looking at books is concerned, you first. You have come here asking all sorts of extremely basic and elementary science questions, all of which are well-addressed in modern books currently in print and available to buy over the Internet. I have linked to a few of these for you in the past. But you refuse to do even the most basic study to investigate your ideas.

This is your interest. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to show us what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Mojo,

Pls look at possibilities that in consideration of 'self healing/immunity or 'initiated self healing/immunity AND individual different effects, any number of positive & negative results can be thought as self healing, placebo or real effects. How to measure real effects without healing consideration, is to be thought. It can be therefore thought, that it can be bit difficlut to measure absolutely in science--whether a real effect, a placebo or a self healing.Kumar, please read Hans's most recent post in this thread, which addresses precisely this point.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
*sigh*

Kumar, try to understand this concept:

Let us assume that holy water works because our belief in it initiates self-healing.

Now you believe in holy water, so I give you some water, and say: "This is holy water, Kumar, it will heal you." So you feel better. We do this to a large group of people, and they all feel better. Now, what REALLY happened was that only half of them got holy water. The rest got plain unholy tab water. Al lbelieved the same and were treated the same, right? So what is the ONLY difference betwen the groups? The holiness of the water, right? So if the group that really got holy water improve more than the group that only thought they got holy water, then it indicates that holyness of water has an effect. If not, it indicates that only belief matters.

OK?

Edited to add: Oh, and antibiotics don't work by improving our immunity, they actually KILL bacteria. Both antibiotics and vaccines can be shown to work whether you believe in them or not.

Hans

Do you believe that any medicine or healing substance can behave differently in different people inspite all having same symptoms--I mean, are effects can be dependent on individual basis, more or less?

Mr.Hans, Vikram,

Can you tell me briefly, how madern medicines work? Whether, by direct effect or by changing any of the body's system/function?

Rolfe,

I think I have indicated previously, otherwise flume can copy from the book with him & tell you here. If you want me to type again , I will do that on your request.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

I think I have indicated previously, otherwise flume can copy from the book with him & tell you here. If you want me to type again , I will do that on your request. Consider yourself requested. I want to know what evidence you have for your statement thatmostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.Rolfe.

[Kumar]

"INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF CELLS.

The principal inorganic materials of nerve-cells are magnesia phos., Kali phos., Natrum and Ferrum:- "Muscle-cells contain the same, with the addition of Kali mur. Connective tissue-cells have for their specific substance Silica, while that of the elastic tissue-cells probably calcarea flour. In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue. Cartilage and mucous cells have for their specific inorganic material Natrum mur, which is found also in all solid and fluid parts of the body. Hair and the crystalline lens contain among other inorganic substances, also ferrum. The carbonates, as such, are, according to Moleschott, .without any influence in the process of cell-formation. "

Some Recent bit refined indications are :-

"CF: a vital constituent of the elastic fibres, the surface of bonds, of vascular walls and connective tissue.
CP: a predominent mineral salt in the blood plasma, bonds,gastric juice and saliva.
CS: present in liver, bile and the mucous membrane.
FP: is found essentially in blood (HB).
KM: predominent in blood corpuseles, the ICF, and also in cells of the nerves and muscles.
KP: vital in the formation and maintainence of the cells of the brain and is also present in the tissue forming substance.
KS: is essential in the cells of the epithelium, muscles, nerves and in the ICF. Carrier of oxygen as well as of organic material. It furnishes vitality of the epithelial tissues.
MP: an important constituent of muscles, nerves , brain and bone cells.
NM: the vital salt is present in the blood plasma and fluids which surround the cell structures throughout the body.
NP: is predominant in the blood and the ICF, and to a lesser extent in cells of muscles and nerves.
NS: an important constituent of ICF where it surfs to regulate the quantity of the water in the tissues. Vital to normal glandular function.
Silicea(Silicic Acid): is present in the human body in comparatively very small quantities. It is an important constituent of the connective tissues, skin, hair and nails."

Rolfe, These are tissue constituent as given in TRS's referance. The first one is given in book "Twelve Tissue Remedies" & 2nd one some refined recent indications. Other referances also indicate somewhat alike it. You may have to tell, how these are indicated in salt forms onash analysis. You may also grossly match, if presence of atomic constituent of salts are grossly correct in any form( ionic or compound) of any salt in any tissue/cell or not?

[rppa]

Originally posted by Kumar
Do you believe that any medicine or healing substance can behave differently in different people inspite all having same symptoms--I mean, are effects can be dependent on individual basis, more or less?

No.

Antibiotics may affect different strains of the same bacterium differently. But that has to do with the bacterium, not the person.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
"INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF CELLS.

The principal inorganic materials of nerve-cells are magnesia phos., Kali phos., Natrum and Ferrum:- "Muscle-cells contain the same, with the addition of Kali mur. Connective tissue-cells have for their specific substance Silica, while that of the elastic tissue-cells probably calcarea flour. In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue. Cartilage and mucous cells have for their specific inorganic material Natrum mur, which is found also in all solid and fluid parts of the body. Hair and the crystalline lens contain among other inorganic substances, also ferrum. The carbonates, as such, are, according to Moleschott, .without any influence in the process of cell-formation. "

Some Recent bit refined indications are :-

"CF: a vital constituent of the elastic fibres, the surface of bonds, of vascular walls and connective tissue.
CP: a predominent mineral salt in the blood plasma, bonds,gastric juice and saliva.
CS: present in liver, bile and the mucous membrane.
FP: is found essentially in blood (HB).
KM: predominent in blood corpuseles, the ICF, and also in cells of the nerves and muscles.
KP: vital in the formation and maintainence of the cells of the brain and is also present in the tissue forming substance.
KS: is essential in the cells of the epithelium, muscles, nerves and in the ICF. Carrier of oxygen as well as of organic material. It furnishes vitality of the epithelial tissues.
MP: an important constituent of muscles, nerves , brain and bone cells.
NM: the vital salt is present in the blood plasma and fluids which surround the cell structures throughout the body.
NP: is predominant in the blood and the ICF, and to a lesser extent in cells of muscles and nerves.
NS: an important constituent of ICF where it surfs to regulate the quantity of the water in the tissues. Vital to normal glandular function.
Silicea(Silicic Acid): is present in the human body in comparatively very small quantities. It is an important constituent of the connective tissues, skin, hair and nails."

Rolfe, These are tissue constituent as given in TRS's referance. The first one is given in book "Twelve Tissue Remedies" & 2nd one some refined recent indications. Other referances also indicate somewhat alike it. You may have to tell, how these are indicated in salt forms onash analysis. You may also grossly match, if presence of atomic constituent of salts are grossly correct in any form( ionic or compound) of any salt in any tissue/cell or not? This is not an anaylsis. At best it is a summary. What Flume posted about blood cells and plasma was an analysis, it gave actual amounts measured in the two fractions of blood. What you have just typed is meaningless because there are no numbers.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Rolfe, The purpose was to get indications of presence of different salts. Dr.Sch. was not willing to advice RDAs. The rest whole theory is based on provings, symptoms etcc. Not exact, but when presence of these were indicated--it tells that he was knowing & understanding presence of these in different parts. Are these grossly wrong in matching these(as per atomic/ionic constituents of salts) with today's improved details. Anyway, can you tell current analysis of presence of differant constituents in differant parts of body in quantity, as you are asking from me?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe, The purpose was to get indications of presence of different salts. Dr.Sch. was not willing to advice RDAs. The rest whole theory is based on provings, symptoms etcc. Not exact, but when presence of these were indicated--it tells that he was knowing & understanding presence of these in different parts. Are these grossly wrong in matching these(as per atomic/ionic constituents of salts) with today's improved details. Anyway, can you tell current analysis of presence of differant constituents in differant parts of body in quantity, as you are asking from me? No, you didn't state that this was about the presence of "different salts". You saidmostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodiesI repeat, "mostly similar salts". Your post seems in fact now to indicate the opposite.

What I know about the composition of the body in today's terms is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your claims, and I want to see the analyses on which Schüssler based his ideas. Flume found something about blood plasma and blood cells, which made reasonable sense. Why can you not show me the same analyses for all the parts of the body you are talking about?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
No, you didn't state that this was about the presence of "different salts". You saidI repeat, "mostly similar salts". Your post seems in fact now to indicate the opposite.

What I know about the composition of the body in today's terms is not what we are discussing. We are discussing your claims, and I want to see the analyses on which Schüssler based his ideas. Flume found something about blood plasma and blood cells, which made reasonable sense. Why can you not show me the same analyses for all the parts of the body you are talking about?

Rolfe.

Because, I don't want that in quantity and it is neither mentioned in referances nor required for the purpose of unserstanding this system. I just wanted to know 'how mostly/somewhat similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies? I didn't mentioned how mostly/somewhat same quantity...... Any way, it can be somewhat same propotional quantity, but its indications are there but not the exact quantity, which you should tell by searching your old records. Anyway, it is not so important. Important is how same salts(by name) were indicated in different parts on ash analysis?

[flume]

Originally posted by Kumar
your old records. Anyway, it is not so important. Important is how same salts(by name) were indicated in different parts on ash analysis? [/B] Kumar, I think your words 'mostly/somewhat similar' are confusing. Do you mean that all the different body parts have mostly similar minerals? That muscle is similar to brain, for instance? Or do you mean that the muscles of all people are similar and the brains of all people are similar but the muscle and brain might be different from each other? Can you say exactly what tissues are similar to others? Because it seems as if Schuessler's point was that there was a difference between muscle and brain, for instance.

Here's an example of where Schuessler missed something because of the limited knowledge of his time. In that section you posted from "Twelve Tissues Remedies", the information on muscle did not list a calcium salt. But calcium is absolutely critical to the function of muscles. It is much more interesting than the ones listed.
(I'm not saying I think it would have been a useful treatment. But with Schuessler's interest in'molecular motion', I think calcium would have been expected to be on his list for muscles.)

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kumar
Can you tell me briefly, how madern medicines work? Whether, by direct effect or by changing any of the body's system/function?
Some medicines change the body's system/function. Some don't. What's your point?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by flume
Kumar, I think your words 'mostly/somewhat similar' are confusing. Do you mean that all the different body parts have mostly similar minerals? That muscle is similar to brain, for instance? Or do you mean that the muscles of all people are similar and the brains of all people are similar but the muscle and brain might be different from each other? Can you say exactly what tissues are similar to others? Because it seems as if Schuessler's point was that there was a difference between muscle and brain, for instance.[/b

Here's an example of where Schuessler missed something because of the limited knowledge of his time. In that section you posted from "Twelve Tissues Remedies", the information on muscle did not list a calcium salt. But calcium is absolutely critical to the function of muscles. It is much more interesting than the ones listed.
(I'm not saying I think it would have been a useful treatment. But with Schuessler's interest in'molecular motion', I think calcium would have been expected to be on his list for muscles.)

flume,

Cacl.Phos ir mentioned;-

"In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue."

Do you know constuents of differant parts of body as per current knowledge. Older details which I have given, can be gross assesment in various tissue

[Dermanus]

Originally posted by Kumar
We, & even skeptics, may give preferance/importance to belief, inspite of fat, not knowing those aspects in exact science eg; in God, in parents, in other relatives, in making big & heavy houses, most modernizations, non absolute medicines & concepts etc. You can think of many many such beliefs. You don't do or accept all things with exact science, but still follow belief, observations & other's experiances. Whether people died in Tsumani, were living with science or without science? Why they believed in Sea? Were Tsumani type things not possible in skeptic's POV? Why many people still live near the sea or with other risks indicated in science? Why you live in big house, can't it fall next movement/day/month by any natural or innatural clamity? Why you travel by air? Can't it crash, scientifically? Probably, you mostly move with belief & just can't move without belief.

Alike, I/we/you move in TRS/other systems/modern systems with some good or bad, some belief or non-belief, some benefits & risks...etc.

... so that's a yes?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Because, I don't want that in quantity and it is neither mentioned in referances nor required for the purpose of unserstanding this system. I just wanted to know 'how mostly/somewhat similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies? I didn't mentioned how mostly/somewhat same quantity...... Any way, it can be somewhat same propotional quantity, but its indications are there but not the exact quantity, which you should tell by searching your old records. Anyway, it is not so important. Important is how same salts(by name) were indicated in different parts on ash analysis? Kumar, you already know my view on this. That any analyses carried out in the 1870s were of necessity so crude that their results are of no value in elucidating how the body works.

You, however, seem to set such store by these analyses Schüssler looked at (first I thought you claimed he did the analysis, but now it seems he just looked at analyses carried out by someone else), that I would be intersted to know what the results were and how they were obtained. I'm not that surprised to realise that you don't have a clue, though.

It's not up to me to tell you what these analyses were or are. You are making the claims for Schüssler's method, so it is up to you to show us what Schüssler based his theories on.

You don't know, do you?

We've told you a dozen times that the importance of different ions is in where they are within the tissue - inside or outside the cells, free or bound to membranes, and what mechanisms control where they go and what functions they fulfil. Crude ash analysis is of no interest to how scientists understand the functioning of the body. If you think it is of interest, show the analyses you think are so important.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by flume
I'm not saying I think it would have been a useful treatment. But with Schuessler's interest in'molecular motion', I think calcium would have been expected to be on his list for muscles.Always assuming that Dr. S. had any real idea of the function of salts (well, ions really) in the living body...

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe

We've told you a dozen times that the importance of different ions is in where they are within the tissue - inside or outside the cells, free or bound to membranes, and what mechanisms control where they go and what functions they fulfil. Crude ash analysis is of no interest to how scientists understand the functioning of the body. If you think it is of interest, show the analyses you think are so important.

Rolfe.

Try to understand my point. Body ulitimtely can work & perform functions by release of any energy & different energy levels & pattern can perform different activities & functions. Probably but mostly, energy in body is released by chemical reactions. It can be thought that constituents of these tissue salts, interact with each other & release/take some specific energy level & pattern--resulting in differenciating effect as indicated. Chemical reactions can be spontaneous. However when ash analysis is seen, the salts in ash indicated these possibilities. I can't say for sure, but cations & anions as per salts constituents may be having some chemical affinity to each other in different parts.

Can you explain it; suppose there are 100 ions of sodium, 80 ions of Cloride, 25 of phosphorus & 15 of sulphur are there in a solution. How these will associate on drying it?

[Kilik]

You probably need both mental concentration/ belief/ heart and the right substances in your body combined, as well as destiny too.

[Vikram]

Originally posted by Kilik
You probably need both mental concentration/ belief/ heart and the right substances in your body combined, as well as destiny too.
Now what in the world does destiny have to do with this?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Try to understand my point. Body ulitimtely can work & perform functions by release of any energy & different energy levels & pattern can perform different activities & functions. Probably but mostly, energy in body is released by chemical reactions. It can be thought that constituents of these tissue salts, interact with each other & release/take some specific energy level & pattern--resulting in differenciating effect as indicated. Chemical reactions can be spontaneous. However when ash analysis is seen, the salts in ash indicated these possibilities. I can't say for sure, but cations & anions as per salts constituents may be having some chemical affinity to each other in different parts.This is complete fantasy. You simply made that up. There isn't the slightest shred of experimental evidence to support such a theory.

Kumar, the workings of chemistry and biochemistry in the body have been painstakingly worked out step by step by scientists who have done a great deal of basic study of their subject, and are building on the findings of earlier workers. You can't even begin to understand how this is done without an education. What makes you think that you alone, with no education in the subject and no understanding of what is already known, can single-handedly dream up a true description of how the world works?Originally posted by Kumar
Can you explain it; suppose there are 100 ions of sodium, 80 ions of Cloride, 25 of phosphorus & 15 of sulphur are there in a solution. How these will associate on drying it? Now, would you care to tell me what constitutes an "ion" of phosphorus, or sulphur? Because I have to tell you, there's no such thing. I also have to tell you that if I make some assumptions about what you actually mean by that, such a solution is impossible.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
This is complete fantasy

Frankly, it looks in all of our discussions, that whatever I say is beyond your head and whatever you say iss beyond my head. So, better we can avoid.

Thanks.:(

[Powa]

Originally posted by Kumar
Frankly, it looks in all of our discussions, that whatever I say is beyond your head and whatever you say iss beyond my head. So, better we can avoid.

Thanks.:(
:dl:

[MRC_Hans]

Kumar is like a person who, without having learned to drive, without having ever seen an engine, and without having any keys, sits down in the rear seat of a car and starts to make claims of what is wrong with the engine since he cannot make the car run.

We carefully explain that he needs to learn to drive, needs to get the keys, and needs to move to the driver's seat, but he just starts to weave imaginary ideas of why the car should run the way he wants it to run.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rolfe Kumar said:
Can you explain it; suppose there are 100 ions of sodium, 80 ions of Cloride, 25 of phosphorus & 15 of sulphur are there in a solution. How these will associate on drying it?Now, would you care to tell me what constitutes an "ion" of phosphorus, or sulphur? Because I have to tell you, there's no such thing. I also have to tell you that if I make some assumptions about what you actually mean by that, such a solution is impossible.Come on, Kumar. What is an "ion" of phosphorus? Or of sulphur? Have you any idea why I said that your hypothetical solution is impossible?

If you can't answer this, then yes, anything we could say and indeed the whole of science is obviously "beyond your head".

I hardly think you can take much credit from the fact that we sometimes find it difficult to understand what you mean by your garbled and incoherent fantasy-posts.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

I understand more salts as tisse salts.:)

Anyway you can read here.SULFUR (http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/sulfur.html) & PHOSPHORUS. (http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/phosphorus.html)

More details about ION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion), Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) &
Phosphorus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus)

[flume]

Kumar, my reaction to your post was the same as Rolfe's. There is no substance to it. You could have written the same paragraph and substituted lots of other words for salts and ash, and it would have sounded just the same - and still made no sense. The twelve "reflected wavelengths". The twelve amino acids. The twelve tissue-specific protein isoforms. The twelve happy thoughts. The twelve vitamins. (Probably homeopathy actually includes all these :(.)

And I saw the same two problems that rolfe saw with your question. I think everyone knows what you mean, but if you understood what you were talking about enough to discuss that question, you wouldn't say it that way.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

I understand more salts as tisse salts.:)

Anyway you can read here.SULFUR (http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/sulfur.html) & PHOSPHORUS. (http://www.scescape.net/~woods/elements/phosphorus.html)

More details about ION (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion), Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) &
Phosphorus. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus) No dice, Kumar. I know what sulphur and phosphorus are, and I know what ions are, and I know why sulphur and phospohorus are not ions. I don't need to read Wikipedia links about any of it. Maybe you need to read the links yourself?

What I want to know is whether you understand anything at all about these elementary matters. If you don't, then you ought to try to find out something about them before you presume to investigate anything involving salts.

Oops, said that before, didn't I? But Kumar doesn't want to get an education.

Rolfe.

[Powa]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oops, said that before, didn't I? But Kumar doesn't want to get an education.
Based on my experience with Kumar I believe this (http://www.memorylossonline.com/glossary/anterogradeamnesia.html) to be the most likely explanation for his unability to learn, because no one is this dense.

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

Then, better you can learn & teach in Dr.Mas style. Frankly, it looks now, you don't know anything, how similar salts are analysed on ash analysis & just carrying on this issue since long by mentioning this & that type talks. If you can't tell on 'parts basis', you could have told on 'total body basis'---how similar salts are found on hauman ash analysis?

Anyway, you may deny & leave , if modern science didn't made it clear to you. Other things have no relavance to it, as you are trying to divert.

[flume]

Originally posted by Kumar Frankly, it looks now, you don't know anything, how similar salts are analysed on ash analysis & just carrying on this issue since long by mentioning this & that type talks. If you can't tell on 'parts basis', you could have told on 'total body basis'---how similar salts are found on hauman ash analysis? Hey, Kumar, would you please make it clearer what you mean by similar salts? What is similar to what? What are you comparing to what? Maybe if you gave some examples it would be clearer what you are asking.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Then, better you can learn & teach in Dr.Mas style. Frankly, it looks now, you don't know anything, how similar salts are analysed on ash analysis & just carrying on this issue since long by mentioning this & that type talks. If you can't tell on 'parts basis', you could have told on 'total body basis'---how similar salts are found on hauman ash analysis?

Anyway, you may deny & leave , if modern science didn't made it clear to you. Other things have no relavance to it, as you are trying to divert.
Modern science makes it extremely clear to anyone but those who refuse to understand. Namely, you. If a remedy can't show, in a placebo controlled trial, that it is more effective than placebo, then it is not effective at all.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by flume
Hey, Kumar, would you please make it clearer what you mean by similar salts? What is similar to what? What are you comparing to what? Maybe if you gave some examples it would be clearer what you are asking.

As per the details, which you have given previously. Do we get salts on ash analysis of plants & animals or not? If yes, will these be mostly comparable or not taken from many specimens?

[Rolfe]

Ooh! Just noticed I made a great pun without realising it.

(Simple things....)

Originally posted by Rolfe
I know what sulphur and phosphorus are, and I know what ions are, and I know why sulphur and phospohorus are not ions.

What I want to know is whether you understand anything at all about these elementary matters.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

Then, better you can learn & teach in Dr.Mas style. The day I either learn or teach in any way similar to Dr. Mas, is the day I shoot myself.

OK, Kumar, I don't know anything. They just gave me a PhD for spending three years studying the concentrations of a wide range of electrolytes in different body fluids because they felt sorry for me, I suppose.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
The day I either learn or teach in any way similar to Dr. Mas, is the day I shoot myself.

OK, Kumar, I don't know anything. They just gave me a PhD for spending three years studying the concentrations of a wide range of electrolytes in different body fluids because they felt sorry for me, I suppose.

Rolfe.

It means you don't want to learn anything on other sujects. Thanks for clarification.

He also claim about many PhDs. Why don't you respect & give credit to him? The real use of your studies & knowledge to me is ;what you can give to me, not what is with you? I am just insisting salt's type role, because I observeed salts type effect not ion/atom type effect? TRS have Natrum Mur. & Natrum sulph., both from Sodium group but somewhat opposite effect.??

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Kumar
Why don't you respect & give credit to him?Because of the content of his posts, or rather the content that is lacking from them. He makes wild claims and then makes excuses for refusing to attempt to substantiate them. I have no way of knowing how much his qualifications are actually worth, since his website doesn't reveal where he got them, but I have certainly been able to form an opinion of him from what he has posted.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Kumar


He also claim about many PhDs.


I'm not sure how much credence to give to these claims, especially given the evident age of his avatar.


Why don't you respect & give credit to him?


Because, as far as I can tell, he has little or no knowledge or information of the sort that earns respect, credit, and credence.

Either he's wildly unqualified to hold his Ph.D.s (which is a definite possibility), the Ph.D.'s are in areas completely unrelated to the biological and medical sciences (which I rather doubt), he's mentally unhinged (also a definite possiblility), or the Ph.D.'s simply do not exist (which I think is the most likely of the three options).

If his opinions were scientifically valid, his degrees wouldn't matter. As his opinions are scientifically invalid, his degrees still don't matter.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Then, better you can learn & teach in Dr.Mas style. Frankly, it looks now, you don't know anything, how similar salts are analysed on ash analysis & just carrying on this issue since long by mentioning this & that type talks. If you can't tell on 'parts basis', you could have told on 'total body basis'---how similar salts are found on hauman ash analysis?

Anyway, you may deny & leave , if modern science didn't made it clear to you. Other things have no relavance to it, as you are trying to divert. Arrrrg, Kumar! DO try not to make too big a fool of yourself. ROlfe knows more that you could learn in alifetime, even if you started to listen to people.

Rolfe has already explained all that to you months ago. It is just that you are so incredibly thick that you don't get a word of it.


Rolfe: Back on the Kumar wagon, ehh? Heheheh.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Either he's wildly unqualified to hold his Ph.D.s (which is a definite possibility), the Ph.D.'s are in areas completely unrelated to the biological and medical sciences (which I rather doubt), he's mentally unhinged (also a definite possiblility), or the Ph.D.'s simply do not exist (which I think is the most likely of the three options). Why would anyone want more than one PhD?

That was what I always thought was so silly about Quantum Leap. The authors gave the Scott Bakula character about five PhDs, which meant (since there is a mandatory three-year full-time research requirement to get every one) he had done nothing but go from one PhD project to another since his first graduation. What a sad waste of a life!

A PhD is "a training in research". There is a reason why rank-and-file research staff are called "post-docs" - because that's what you do after you've done your training in your PhD project. To go back and do more than one PhD is to keep going round the same hamster-wheel for eternity. And rather suggests you don't have what it takes to cut it in the higher grades.

I can just about imagine someone who has spent their working life in one field, possibly scientific, changing course in later life and studying something completely different, possibly an arts subject, and maybe even going as far as a PhD there too. But I'd be absolutely stunned if anyone could point me to any serious intellectual who boasts more than one PhD in the same or related subjects.

Fact is, you get "your" PhD and move on. It's not a gold star you can be awarded time and time again for a particularly clever piece of work. Same as nobody repeats primary three after passing the end of term exams, nobody repeats their PhD once they've got it.

Rolfe.

Hans - do you understand the term "displacement activity"?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rolfe
*Snip*
Hans - do you understand the term "displacement activity"? I'm not sure. The connotations I get don't seem to fit anything I'd expect you to engage in ;).

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I'm not sure. The connotations I get don't seem to fit anything I'd expect you to engage in ;).I have three pieces of work that are really, really urgent. So I sit down at the computer and what do I do? At least it isn't that bloody Solitaire game.

Rolfe.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Kumar
...He also claim about many PhDs. Why don't you respect & give credit to him? ...
Because he is most probably a liar or his Ph.D.s are not valid academic qualifications, most probably purchased from a schmatta mill.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Why would anyone want more than one PhD?

As a goal, I admit it's a little unusual -- but I know a few multiple
Ph.D. people who have found that they simply like study, classes, directed research, and so forth -- and they find themselves getting multiple Ph.D.s on the grounds that "hey, I've taken all the courses anyway out of personal interest, so I might as well pay the fifty quid it takes to register for another piece of paper."

At least some schools also offer the option of getting multiple Ph.D.s at the same time through a sufficiently interdisciplinary study. The MuD/PhuD, for example, is almost commonplace. But I've seen a number of other schools that will offer "joint Ph.D." programs where you receive two Ph.D.'s, for example, in biomedical engineering and in biochemistry (for example, for developing an artificial tissue replacement).

And, of course, most of the really top-flight researchers hold multiple honorary doctorates, which are often LLD but sometimes PhD instead.

[Jeff Corey]

I worked for a Ph.D./M.D. in a primate lab, as an undergraduate. He was into a hot area (at that time) and he had both degrees at 28.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by new drkitten
As a goal, I admit it's a little unusual -- but I know a few multiple
Ph.D. people who have found that they simply like study, classes, directed research, and so forth -- and they find themselves getting multiple Ph.D.s on the grounds that "hey, I've taken all the courses anyway out of personal interest, so I might as well pay the fifty quid it takes to register for another piece of paper."

At least some schools also offer the option of getting multiple Ph.D.s at the same time through a sufficiently interdisciplinary study. The MuD/PhuD, for example, is almost commonplace. But I've seen a number of other schools that will offer "joint Ph.D." programs where you receive two Ph.D.'s, for example, in biomedical engineering and in biochemistry (for example, for developing an artificial tissue replacement).

And, of course, most of the really top-flight researchers hold multiple honorary doctorates, which are often LLD but sometimes PhD instead. I've never come across any of that in this country. You don't do any courses or classes to get a PhD, you do three years of original research, under a supervisor, then write and submit and get examined on a thesis. Even the people I know who liked that (well, I did actually), would walk barefoot over hot coals rather than do it again. (It's quite enough work taking on the supervision job for the next cohort, thankyouverymuch.) And even if a project spanned two disciplines, you'd only get the one PhD for the one project.

I remember talking to a school friend who said she was just starting a PhD in mediaeval Portuguese literature. I asked with some interest how the heck you did an original research project in that. She explained that you went out and discovered some mediaeval Portuguese poetry that had never been translated or written about before, and translated it and researched its provenance and wrote about all that. And its literary merit. The trick was of course that her supervisor knew where she should look to be virtually certain of finding such poetry. But even if she had to do archaeology as well to find the things, still, no PhD in archaeology. One three-year research project, one thesis, one PhD. That's the rule.

In fact they wouldn't even waive it for Stephen Hawking. He had just started his project when he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease and given two years to live. His father petitioned Cambridge University Court to let him graduate if he managed to do enough work and produce a satisfactory thesis in less than three years. He was turned down.

Classes???? Sheesh....

Also, it's an extremely jealously guarded principle that an honorary degree is never a PhD. So you know that the only way to get one of these is to do the work as above. And the idea of doing it twice... not a hope!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I worked for a Ph.D./M.D. in a primate lab, as an undergraduate. He was into a hot area (at that time) and he had both degrees at 28. Oh, that's not at all unusual. It's the special nature of the PhD as it exists in my world that makes it extremely unlikely that anyone would volunteer for a second dose.

Rolfe.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I've never come across any of that in this country. You don't do any courses or classes to get a PhD, you do three years of original research, under a supervisor, then write and submit and get examined on a thesis.

Schools vary. At many schools, it's "relatively" easy to get what we used to call a "staple thesis"; just collect four (or so) semi-related journal articles and bind them as chapters 2-5 of the dissertation. (Chapter 1, of course, is a general introduction to the field, and the conclusion can be anything you want up to and including a recipe for braised duck.) These are more common in the United States than in the UK, in part because you often have much more time, sometimes as much as 10-12 years, to complete the dissertation, and it's much easier to do it part-time. I believe such theses are fairly common in Japanese schools as well.

Similarly, I'm not sure who you think is guarding the "extremely jealously guarded principle that an honorary degree is never a PhD," but a simple search on the phrase "honorary PhD" will find several dozen reasonably reputable universities that are happy to award such.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Schools vary. At many schools, it's "relatively" easy to get what we used to call a "staple thesis"; just collect four (or so) semi-related journal articles and bind them as chapters 2-5 of the dissertation. (Chapter 1, of course, is a general introduction to the field, and the conclusion can be anything you want up to and including a recipe for braised duck.) These are more common in the United States than in the UK, in part because you often have much more time, sometimes as much as 10-12 years, to complete the dissertation, and it's much easier to do it part-time. I believe such theses are fairly common in Japanese schools as well.

Similarly, I'm not sure who you think is guarding the "extremely jealously guarded principle that an honorary degree is never a PhD," but a simple search on the phrase "honorary PhD" will find several dozen reasonably reputable universities that are happy to award such. Blimey, how the other half lives! So "Dr. Mas" might really have these degrees, if that's all they're worth?

I was talking about the UK. Last I heard about it, there would have been a mass riot of earned-PhDs if any university here threatened to award an honorary one. Give 'em a DSc or anything you like, just not a PhD. Sort of like you don't get awarded honorary A levels.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Arrrrg, Kumar! DO try not to make too big a fool of yourself. ROlfe knows more that you could learn in alifetime, even if you started to listen to people.

Rolfe has already explained all that to you months ago. It is just that you are so incredibly thick that you don't get a word of it.


Rolfe: Back on the Kumar wagon, ehh? Heheheh.

Hans

When you can't trust other sayings, & remain skeptic in everything exept of your interest, how one can believe in anyone's just saying. How can I believe, he/she is PhD. Even, if I couldn't get anything materialistic from any level of qualification, what is his or his degree's benefit to me. As per your posts & most of replies, you looks much more educated/qualified/beneficial to me. At these type of forums, posting substance cn only matter, not degree, qualifications, contradictions, this & that etc.

Don't you feel/find that effects of any medicine is related & seen as per its chemical composition in coumpound form? Why we don't take medicines in ionic/atomic form? We can't deny that any activity/function/work can be energy dependant & if our body works mostly be chemical reactions, energy can be released or taken by associations & disassociations--as specific to any compound/molecule. You can't interpret any medicine in terms its atomic/elemental form, but you consider its molecular form. Specific energies can be chracteristic to specific molecules.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Mojo
Because of the content of his posts, or rather the content that is lacking from them. He makes wild claims and then makes excuses for refusing to attempt to substantiate them. I have no way of knowing how much his qualifications are actually worth, since his website doesn't reveal where he got them, but I have certainly been able to form an opinion of him from what he has posted.

Yes, posting qualities can only matter in these type of discussions--not degrees, qualifications, claims etc. Whatever he is asking repeatedly is due to 'going in skeptic's way' & want to clear every point before telling anything. It is pure non-belief/disbelief style. Mostly, I feel/find now, he may satisfy you about molecular presence in all potencies.

[flume]

Originally posted by Kumar Don't you feel/find that effects of any medicine is related & seen as per its chemical composition in coumpound form? Why we don't take medicines in ionic/atomic form? We can't deny that any activity/function/work can be energy dependant & if our body works mostly be chemical reactions, energy can be released or taken by associations & disassociations--as specific to any compound/molecule. You can't interpret any medicine in terms its atomic/elemental form, but you consider its molecular form. Specific energies can be chracteristic to specific molecules. If you think this, then why are you such a fan of ash analysis in the first place? What do you think happens to the molecules in the tissue when they are burned?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by flume
If you think this, then why are you such a fan of ash analysis in the first place? What do you think happens to the molecules in the tissue when they are burned?

I think, I have already explained it many times. The purpose is to know type of energies released or taken on chemical reactions in body by the constituents of these salts.

Just look at this;

"Disease is the result of a disturbance of the molecular motion of one of the inorganic tissue salts. The cure consists in the restoration of the equilibrium of the molecular motion by furnishing a minimal dose of the same inorganic substance, since the molecules of the material thus used remedially fill the gap in the chain of molecules of the affected cell or tissue salt.

"Virchow says that disease is an altered state of the cell, and hence the normal state of the cell constitutes health. The constitution of the cell is determined by the composition of its nutritive environment exactly as a plant thrives according to the quality of soil around its roots.
http://homeopathy-homeopathics-remedies.naturalhealthdoc.net/Homeopathic-Remedy-Information/Health-&-Disease.htm

[flume]

Your quote might answer the question of why you are interested in the ash analysis. But you probably realize that people here would find it incorrect.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by flume
Your quote might answer the question of why you are interested in the ash analysis. But you probably realize that people here would find it incorrect.

That can be reason of some misunderstandings.

Now some other thing;

Can you measure any salt in ash & if yes how?

Whether molecular presence of active remedy's substance in high potencies can be scientifically/chemically measured, if yes, whether already measured or not? Pls provide some referances.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I have three pieces of work that are really, really urgent. So I sit down at the computer and what do I do? At least it isn't that bloody Solitaire game.

Rolfe. It isn't? Are you sh- *oops* sure? (I really had that one rubbed in deep :rolleyes: ). OK, now I get it. Welcome in the club, btw. ....at least I get to improve my English..

Hans