Killer Argument

[hodgy]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

My relatives (who are generally woo in any case) have discovered Reiki. I have already argued the toss with them and their ultimate argument is the placebo effect - 'if it helps somebody then it's ok'.

I can think of a lot of academic objections to this but convoluted arguments will not be effective with them - I need something that turns their position upside-down in a trice - any ideas???

[Richard]

'if it helps somebody then it's ok' - yes, but why do people charge money for it? I get this one a lot. In the end, it's a rip-off. People are paying money or magical powers and all they get is the placebo effect.

[Zygar]

Good question. Here's someone else who is convinced that it's Not a bad thing (http://www.badscience.net/?p=82).

I think the best answer is that the placebo effect is not healing. It is effectively a temporary psychological block that diminishes pain and relieves symptoms without addressing the cause of the problem. So, if you have a little pain in your shoulders or are experiencing minor tension headaches, sure it's not any harm. But if you have a real problem, it simply postpones proper treatment.

[Zygar]

Actually, after I reread that link, I realized that the author was against this line of thinking. But he's not very clear about it.

[Loss Leader]

If Reiki works, why is it that every society that had Reiki also had doctors?

Why can't Reiki heal any medical condition that can be seen - pink eye, a rash, skin cancer, a compound fracture, etc.?

[rustytunes]

If the "life force energy" and its effects can't be measured, how can they be sure it is not doing any harm - its obviously a very powerful force!

[Horatius]

There's the answer my brother gave to my aunt, when she tried to get him to try reiki. She said, "Of course it won't work if you don't believe in it", to which he said, "The nice thing about Robaxacet (http://www.backrelief.ca/) is, it works wether I believe or not."

[Apathia]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

My relatives (who are generally woo in any case) have discovered Reiki. I have already argued the toss with them and their ultimate argument is the placebo effect - 'if it helps somebody then it's ok'.

I can think of a lot of academic objections to this but convoluted arguments will not be effective with them - I need something that turns their position upside-down in a trice - any ideas???

I can't give you any one liners that will turn your parents upside down about Reiki. Let them enjoy. Just impress upon them it's no substitute for medical attention. If their Reiki Master is telling them they can dispense with proper medications, this Reiki Master (myself) says they shouldn't listen to any more nonsense from that person. Reiki is good for relieving pain and minor symptoms (even ehen the person doesn't necessarily believe in it) and helps facilitate recovery from injury and ilnness. It may incidently encourrage a strong immune system, but it won't act as an antibiotic or set broken bones.
See this thread for useful posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64946

[rustytunes]

I can't give you any one liners that will turn your parents upside down about Reiki. Let them enjoy. Just impress upon them it's no substitute for medical attention. If their Reiki Master is telling them they can dispense with proper medications, this Reiki Master (myself) says they shouldn't listen to any more nonsense from that person. Reiki is good for relieving pain and minor symptoms (even ehen the person doesn't necessarily believe in it) and helps facilitate recovery from injury and ilnness. It may incidently encourrage a strong immune system, but it won't act as an antibiotic or set broken bones.
See this thread for useful posts:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64946

Hyparxis, so your a Reiki Master? I'd be interested to hear your response to my question :

If the "life force energy" and its effects can't be measured, how can they be sure it is not doing any harm - its obviously a very powerful force!

I have asked others but have not had a valid answer as yet. And are there any side effects? Thanks in advance.

[Zygar]

Reiki is good for relieving pain and minor symptoms (even ehen the person doesn't necessarily believe in it) and helps facilitate recovery from injury and ilnness. It may incidently encourrage a strong immune system, but it won't act as an antibiotic or set broken bones.

Essentially you are saying that Reiki is a placebo just as I described. The effects you describe are effectively the same as any other placebo treatment.

[Apathia]

Hyparxis, so your a Reiki Master? I'd be interested to hear your response to my question :

If the "life force energy" and its effects can't be measured, how can they be sure it is not doing any harm - its obviously a very powerful force!


I have asked others but have not had a valid answer as yet. And are there any side effects? Thanks in advance.

That's a good question to ask the majority of Reiki people, who still won't be able to answer it except to say it's nice spirit-life energy, so certainly it wouldn't harm anyone. I know other Reiki masters who do say there are contraindications. It's not to be used till a bone is set or it will engage the bone in a misalligned healing.

But as for me, I'm kind of demythologised. In my opinion this "lifeforce" isn't an actual physical force. What is felt as an "energy" is a combination of different subjective factors and sensitivities. I spoke about that iin the posts I made in the thread I linked to above.

I like Reiki, but I never took its claims literally. In my opinion it's harmless unless it's touted as an alternative healing. (which unfortunately it is in many places.) The most damage is done to wallets and purses with the exobitant fees for "attunements" and "initiations."
I've never charged a fee for teaching it or giving it.

[Apathia]

Essentially you are saying that Reiki is a placebo just as I described. The effects you describe are effectively the same as any other placebo treatment.

Not placebo in the same sense as a pill's placebo effect. There's what I've called a "heightened placebo effect" from the element of personal contact and attention. And it isn't necessary for the individual to believe it, just to be receptive.

[rustytunes]

That's a good question to ask the majority of Reiki people, who still won't be able to answer it except to say it's nice spirit-life energy, so certainly it wouldn't harm anyone. I know other Reiki masters who do say there are contraindications. It's not to be used till a bone is set or it will engage the bone in a misalligned healing.

But as for me, I'm kind of demythologised. In my opinion this "lifeforce" isn't an actual physical force. What is felt as an "energy" is a combination of different subjective factors and sensitivities. I spoke about that iin the posts I made in the thread I linked to above.

I like Reiki, but I never took its claims literally. In my opinion it's harmless unless it's touted as an alternative healing. (which unfortunately it is in many places.) The most damage is done to wallets and purses with the exobitant fees for "attunements" and "initiations."
I've never charged a fee for teaching it or giving it.
Thanks for the answer, Hyparxis. I understand your position, which is refreshing to hear from a Reiki Master, and I can understand that Reiki can be pleasant and comforting for some to receive. I'm glad to hear that you don't believe that the energy is a physical force. Of course Reiki is physically harmless beacuse the life force energy doesn't exist. I agree that it's harmless unless it's touted as an alternative healing, and that the most damage is to wallets and purses. I have a friend who is studying Reiki now, and she is paying massive fees which she is struggling to afford. She will then go out and charge massive fees to administer her healing, I assume.

[trvlr2]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

My relatives (who are generally woo in any case) have discovered Reiki. I have already argued the toss with them and their ultimate argument is the placebo effect - 'if it helps somebody then it's ok'.

I can think of a lot of academic objections to this but convoluted arguments will not be effective with them - I need something that turns their position upside-down in a trice - any ideas???

Tell them to try massage therapy- Ya got yer "healing touch" plus real muscle stimulation.

[Apathia]

I have a friend who is studying Reiki now, and she is paying massive fees which she is struggling to afford. She will then go out and charge massive fees to administer her healing, I assume.

Yeah, I refuse to participate in that racket. There is a general Reiki teaching that there ought to be an exchange. But that wasn't originaly to the founder. When I wa smost active with Reiki, I worked at a school of Massage Therapy and the coin of exchange was sessions.

[Apathia]

Tell them to try massage therapy- Ya got yer "healing touch" plus real muscle stimulation.

Yes! My roomate is a professional Massage Therapist and uses Reiki in sesssions when requested at no extra cost.
Personally I prefer the light touch over the muscle squeezing. Or the Reiki before the pounding.

[Calcas]

Yes! My roomate is a professional Massage Therapist and uses Reiki in sesssions when requested at no extra cost.
Personally I prefer the light touch over the muscle squeezing. Or the Reiki before the pounding.
Give me a break. It's a scam and you know it.

And if you don't, then you should. Placebo is placebo is placebo.

If not, apply for the challenge.

Freaking crooks.

[Windom]

If Reiki works, why is it that every society that had Reiki also had doctors?


If science-based medicine (refered as "doctors" above) works, why every society has homeopathy, reiki, healers and/or so on? :)

[rustytunes]

If science-based medicine (refered as "doctors" above) works, why every society has homeopathy, reiki, healers and/or so on? :)
Gullibility
The desire to believe in ancient myths and fairy tales
etc

[Windom]

Gullibility
The desire to believe in ancient myths and fairy tales
etc

So the answer to the original post would be:

"Gullibility. They desire to believe in science, they don't want accept idea that there may exist something we don't understand yet".


Just wanted to say this rhetorical question is not a good argument, leave alone "killer argument" because it can be turned back very easy.

[rustytunes]

So the answer to the original post would be:

"Gullibility. They desire to believe in science, they don't want accept idea that there may exist something we don't understand yet".


Just wanted to say this rhetorical question is not a good argument, leave alone "killer argument" because it can be turned back very easy.
Well one would have to turn it right back. For starters, science is not a system of belief...

[Windom]

For starters, science is not a system of belief...


Oh yes it is. It's a system of belief, based on evidence and proof.

[vbloke]

I recently debated some "healers" about their "healing energy".
They claimed it was "100% natural", "it comes from the body" and "knew what to heal" and "couldn't do any harm".

I asked them - since the human body can go wrong on it's own (cancers, etc), it can't always be trusted to run itself properly. This "healing energy" comes from the body, how can you be sure, since it can't be measured, that it is actually healing and not making things worse? Energy tends towards entropy (a more disorganised state), surely pumping this energy into someone would cause something entropic to happen and things to get more disorganised over time, thereby actually causing more problems in the long term than curing?

I've yet to hear a decent comeback to that.

[T'ai Chi]

'if it helps somebody then it's ok' - yes, but why do people charge money for it?


That's a poor counter-argument, since we understand that people charge for services (any services) because they are giving their time, experience.

[rustytunes]

Oh yes it is. It's a system of belief, based on evidence and proof.
I refer to belief in this context:
Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

[tsig]

Oh yes it is. It's a system of belief, based on evidence and proof.

The nice thing about science is it dosen't care about your belief. It works.

[rustytunes]

I recently debated some "healers" about their "healing energy".
They claimed it was "100% natural", "it comes from the body" and "knew what to heal" and "couldn't do any harm".

I asked them - since the human body can go wrong on it's own (cancers, etc), it can't always be trusted to run itself properly. This "healing energy" comes from the body, how can you be sure, since it can't be measured, that it is actually healing and not making things worse? Energy tends towards entropy (a more disorganised state), surely pumping this energy into someone would cause something entropic to happen and things to get more disorganised over time, thereby actually causing more problems in the long term than curing?

I've yet to hear a decent comeback to that.
Nice. But I wasn't aware that the energy came from the body - I thought it was channeled by the practitioner into the body. Where from, I have no idea.

[Apathia]

Originally Posted by vbloke View Post
I recently debated some "healers" about their "healing energy".
They claimed it was "100% natural", "it comes from the body" and "knew what to heal" and "couldn't do any harm".

I asked them - since the human body can go wrong on it's own (cancers, etc), it can't always be trusted to run itself properly. This "healing energy" comes from the body, how can you be sure, since it can't be measured, that it is actually healing and not making things worse? Energy tends towards entropy (a more disorganised state), surely pumping this energy into someone would cause something entropic to happen and things to get more disorganised over time, thereby actually causing more problems in the long term than curing?

I've yet to hear a decent comeback to that.

Yes, that's a very good point, though the majority of the "healers" I've talkled to wouldn't get the science. If it were an actual energy, you certainly would be able to get too much of a good thing.
"Force" and "energy" are words borrowed from scientific description. Prior to this attempt to describe these experiences in modern terms there was an older mythology. "Qi" and "Ki" come from a Chinese root for wind or breath. It's the same concept as the ancient Hebrew "Breath of life." If you felt better or more lively after a "Healer's" touch it was thought that (s)he had passed some life to you. My educated guess is that it's not something that comes from outside the body but hormones, endorphins, and a change of attitude on the part of the so-called recipiant.



Nice. But I wasn't aware that the energy came from the body - I thought it was channeled by the practitioner into the body. Where from, I have no idea.

Talk to different Reiki masters and you'll get different answers about the source. But I never hear them arguing about that, calling the other master's source phoney. On at least one level they realize this language is just figurative.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I'll have to paraphrase Stan Marsh's reply to John Edwards.

"No, you give people false hope and a false sense of security about the world around them. You charge them money for this deception. You profit by increasing the level of ignorance in the world to the detriment of all mankind, you giant douche."

If someone has the exact quote, I would love to have it.

[Horatius]

If science-based medicine (refered as "doctors" above) works, why every society has homeopathy, reiki, healers and/or so on? :)

Partly because science-based medicine is up front about not being able to heal everything, for everybody. Our own honesty about our limitations opens the door for these quacks to come in and claim they can do it for you.

Also, science based medicine is limited by its tools. Drugs have side effects, which some people find objectionable. Reiki or homeopathy or what have you don't have side effects, because they don't have effects. So superficially they sound "better". Also consider the unavoidable pain associated with almost any kind of surgery. Some people will always try the "alternative" first, in hopes of avoiding personal discomfort. This segment of the population keeps the so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in business.

[drkitten]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

My relatives (who are generally woo in any case) have discovered Reiki. I have already argued the toss with them and their ultimate argument is the placebo effect - 'if it helps somebody then it's ok'.

Save your money, then. M&Ms are just as "ok" and a lot cheaper.

[CFLarsen]

That's a poor counter-argument, since we understand that people charge for services (any services) because they are giving their time, experience.

Even though there is no basis for the service? It is OK to pay to be conned, because the con-man is, after all, just giving his time, experience? :rolleyes:

[Apathia]

I'll have to paraphrase Stan Marsh's reply to John Edwards.

"No, you give people false hope and a false sense of security about the world around them. You charge them money for this deception. You profit by increasing the level of ignorance in the world to the detriment of all mankind, you giant douche."

If someone has the exact quote, I would love to have it.

I have to agree with you that there are some giant douche's in this department. And your quote sould be applied to them. Actually it has even more aplication to religion, but its hard to snatch away the popular security blankets.

It's one of the reasons I want to see those healing claims countered with facts about
what the so called "energy healings" actually can and cannot do, and why people feel what they do when giving and recieving them.
Science and respect. quick pat answers are no better than telling people their desert siting of a UFO was swamp gas.

[Apathia]

You know what? I've made my qualifying staments. I've told how I use Reiki. Now I'm just going to make a blanket statement.

It's a racket.

It exploits some legit effects and experiences, makes exaggarated claims about them, and charges an arm and a leg for an "attunement" that is now in most cases no more than a ritual.

[Yahzi]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

"Reiki? You bet! I've been looking for an excuse to fondle and grope pretty young women, so tell me more!"

:D

Or my perinnial question:

"But how does it work?"

[Yahzi]

Talk to different Reiki masters and you'll get different answers about the source. But I never hear them arguing about that, calling the other master's source phoney. On at least one level they realize this language is just figurative.
It's one of the "rules" of the new-age community: you can never, ever say someone else is wrong. Unless they're not in the community.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Actually it has even more aplication to religion, but its hard to snatch away the popular security blankets.

Okay, giving Parker and Stone (the creators of South Park) credit for the idea, here's the religious version.

"No, you give people false hope and a false sense of security about the world around them. Then you use guilt and peer pressure to coerce them into giving you money for this deception. You profit by increasing the level of ignorance in the world to the detriment of all mankind, you giant douche."

[hodgy]

Thanks to everyone who replied. Many of the arguments I already used but thanks for giving me a fresh perspective on them, it always helps.

Rustytunes - yours is a novel one that I hadn't though of before (and will use in future so thanks).

I also like the 'delayed-not-fixed symptoms' argument. That's probably the nearest I'll get to a killer argument.

I think my main objection is that it wedges open the door of irrationality - the problem is that people don't say to themselves 'I know its bulls*t but it makes me feel a bit better'. They might fall back on this position in an argument with a skeptic but that's not what they believe - in short, they are very happy to decieve themselves. In so doing they increase the general credulity of society which is currently well weighted in favour of the credulous.

[hodgy]

"Reiki? You bet! I've been looking for an excuse to fondle and grope pretty young women, so tell me more!"

:D

Or my perinnial question:

"But how does it work?"

:) Hah hah - my Sister-In-Law (the Rekei-ee) is an attractive young lady (dont tell my Wife I said that). The Rekei-er is a 70 year old bloke.

And she's paying him...

[c4ts]

"Reiki? You bet! I've been looking for an excuse to fondle and grope pretty young women, so tell me more!"


Lose the honesty, say you're a level 100 healer and only pretty girls can withstand the force of your tremendous healing power.

[Windom]

Belief is usually defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification

OK get it :)

[rustytunes]

You know what? I've made my qualifying staments. I've told how I use Reiki. Now I'm just going to make a blanket statement.

It's a racket.

It exploits some legit effects and experiences, makes exaggarated claims about them, and charges an arm and a leg for an "attunement" that is now in most cases no more than a ritual.

Good for you.

[Soapy Sam]

If energy could be sent around the world which affected human internal organs, adepts , Illuminati and the CIA would have been using it as the ultimate assassination weapon for years.

(Cop out: " Ah, but it's GOOD energy. It can't do harm")

What? Not even to cancer cells?

[c4ts]

If energy could be sent around the world which affected human internal organs, adepts , Illuminati and the CIA would have been using it as the ultimate assassination weapon for years.

(Cop out: " Ah, but it's GOOD energy. It can't do harm")

What? Not even to cancer cells?

Booth killed Abraham Lincoln with KIIIIIIIIIIII!

[immaterial]

'if it helps somebody then it's ok' - yes, but why do people charge money for it? I get this one a lot. In the end, it's a rip-off. People are paying money or magical powers and all they get is the placebo effect.

Is it a rip-off if it helps them? Is there any difference in taking an expensive pill and getting well, and having a reiki tratement and getting well?

Besides, how much is the placebo effect responsible for the outcome of conventional medical treatment? People must obviously believe in the treatment, since they choose it.

"There is no difference between myself and a native witch doctor. We are both doing our best to convince our patient he or she can survive the worst the world can throw. If we can do that our patient will live. If we can not, our patient will die." - Dr. Albert Schweitzer

"It's supposed to be a secret, but I'll tell you anyway. We doctors do nothing. We only help and encourage the doctor within." - Albert Schweitzer, M.D.

"The natural healing force within each of us is the greatest force in getting well." - Hippocrates, The father of medicine

[T'ai Chi]

If one doesn't like the service, they are welcome to not partake in the service.

What is with this whole 'if it helps, it should be free' pseudoargument?

[immaterial]

I think the best answer is that the placebo effect is not healing.


There is a general healing effect, a selfhealing property of the body, which can be triggered by faith or by changing one's beliefs. This effect can be anyting from insignificant to powerful enough to heal any disease in seconds. When it's weak or only works temporarily, it's usually called the placebo effect. When it is strong, and a complete healing takes place, it's called a miracle. Science do not know how to activate this effect at its full power, its experiments only reveals its weak form, the placebo effect.

It's not really miraculous anyway, when a complete healing takes place, it's just plain (meta)physics on a level yet not understood by science.

Science operates with energy in all contexts within physics, and often achieve powerful results and almost "miraculous" physical transformations using energy and knowing how to handle it. Why is it so unbelievable that this can also be done on the physical body? Knowledge is power, and this applies to all areas of life. You can do anything if just you know how to handle the energy and the dynamical balances which are an integral part of any process without exception. As for physical healing, the control center of this energy is in the mind of the patient, and it can be controlled either by the patient himself, or by someone from outside through suggestions and vibrational energy input.

There are hundreds of books and teachers out there explaining all this, seek and you shall find.

[0oTITANo0]

Is it a rip-off if it helps them?
No, of course not. But since Reiki only provides a placebo effect whch does not actually heal anything no one is getting any help.
Is there any difference in taking an expensive pill and getting well, and having a reiki tratement and getting well?
Yes. The pill has a high probability of helping while Reiki has none.
Besides, how much is the placebo effect responsible for the outcome of conventional medical treatment? People must obviously believe in the treatment, since they choose it.
It has very little effect if any. Belief is not a precondition for the success of medical treament. It has a high probability of success in most cases whether you believe it will work or not.

[0oTITANo0]

You can do anything if just you know how to handle the energy and the dynamical balances which are an integral part of any process without exception. As for physical healing, the control center of this energy is in the mind of the patient, and it can be controlled either by the patient himself, or by someone from outside through suggestions and vibrational energy input.

There are hundreds of books and teachers out there explaining all this, seek and you shall find.

These remarks are incredibly offensive and arrogant. What you are effectively saying is that people who suffer and die from disease are making a choice to be sick, suffer and die. I have known a few people in my life who have died very much against their will. Many people are claimed by disease who very much want to live. What you are saying is that young children who develop cancer choose not to rid their bodys of the disease. You are saying that people who develop MS in their 30s opt out on health and instead choose to struggle against a degenerative disease. Am I supposed to believe by your account that quadrupalegic victims of spinal injuries decide that they prefer living in a wheelchair with limited mobility of their upper arms and barely any use of their hands? Are you saying these people could heal their injuries with an attitude adjustment?

I despise the kind of person that can smugly dismiss the pain and suffering of other people as an attitude problem. Too many people suffer, struggle and lose the fight against a disease that they never wanted. To imply that they chose to be sick is to put a callous lack of compassion for the suffering of others on display.

[0oTITANo0]

If one doesn't like the service, they are welcome to not partake in the service.

What is with this whole 'if it helps, it should be free' pseudoargument?

You got it backwards. The essence of the question was: "Why pay so much money for nothing more than the placebo effect?"
You see, no one is getting any real help so why should they pay for not getting help?

[fls]

There is a general healing effect, a selfhealing property of the body, which can be triggered by faith or by changing one's beliefs. This effect can be anyting from insignificant to powerful enough to heal any disease in seconds. When it's weak or only works temporarily, it's usually called the placebo effect. When it is strong, and a complete healing takes place, it's called a miracle. Science do not know how to activate this effect at its full power, its experiments only reveals its weak form, the placebo effect.

"Now, another example of a test of truth, so to speak, that works in the sciences that would probably work in other fields to some extent is that if something is true, really so, if you continue observations and improve the effectiveness of the observations, the effects stand out more obviously. Not less obviously." - Richard Feynman, The Meaning of It All


There are hundreds of books and teachers out there explaining all this, seek and you shall find.

Are these books and teachers that refer to objective evidence or to wishful thinking?

Linda

[UncaStuart]

Too many people suffer, struggle and lose the fight against a disease that they never wanted. To imply that they chose to be sick is to put a callous lack of compassion for the suffering of others on display.

Hear, hear. I was enraged to find my wife's twin sister in tears one day during her fight against ALS: an "alternative" practitioner had given her a line of guff similiar to the above, and she was feeling like a failure. Well, *that* was helpful therapy, you jerk.

She's been dead nine years, and I still feel the rage when this topic comes up.

[Apathia]

These remarks are incredibly offensive and arrogant. What you are effectively saying is that people who suffer and die from disease are making a choice to be sick, suffer and die. I have known a few people in my life who have died very much against their will. Many people are claimed by disease who very much want to live. What you are saying is that young children who develop cancer choose not to rid their bodys of the disease. You are saying that people who develop MS in their 30s opt out on health and instead choose to struggle against a degenerative disease. Am I supposed to believe by your account that quadrupalegic victims of spinal injuries decide that they prefer living in a wheelchair with limited mobility of their upper arms and barely any use of their hands? Are you saying these people could heal their injuries with an attitude adjustment?

I despise the kind of person that can smugly dismiss the pain and suffering of other people as an attitude problem. Too many people suffer, struggle and lose the fight against a disease that they never wanted. To imply that they chose to be sick is to put a callous lack of compassion for the suffering of others on display.

I've got to come out of lurk to respond. Psycho-somatic effects do have a part in healing. However: this is exaggerated way beyond reality by New Age Carpetbaggers selling their "You can live forever in perfect health scams.

My roomate has a book I detest. You Can Heal Your Life Every illness, syndrome or disorder the author could think of is given a cheap psychological reason or defect of character. It's the New Age equivilant of "You are sick because you sinned." "Repent and ye shall be healed."
There's no compassion in it, Just a so called spiritual superiority.

Pardon, but I just had to add my disgust. I hope Imaterial has a qualification to make.

[0oTITANo0]

A cut maybe. But there is no psycho-somatic turning of the tide when it comes to Muscular Dystrophy.

[Valmorian]

I need a killer argument - a one(or 2)-line put-down.

My relatives (who are generally woo in any case) have discovered Reiki. I have already argued the toss with them and their ultimate argument is the placebo effect - 'if it helps somebody then it's ok'.

I can think of a lot of academic objections to this but convoluted arguments will not be effective with them - I need something that turns their position upside-down in a trice - any ideas???

Ask them to clarify what they mean by "If it helps somebody then it's ok", I mean REALLY elaborate on it. What do they mean by "help"? What do they mean by "ok"?

If "Help" is just a euphemism for "feel better" and "Ok" for "it doesn't harm anybody else", then ask if they'd be ok with putting their subjects on heroin?

[The Mad Hatter]

Remind them that if they get real medical treatment, even if the treatment doesn't work, it will still have the same placebo effect as reiki has.

Basically, you can either have proper medicine + placebo, or just placebo. Any treatment will give you a placebo effect.

You could also refer to some examples like Peter Popoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff). After he had "cured" his people - and they certainly felt cured - they would throw away their medications, only to find that their condition is still there. As far as I know, placebos can have some minute health benefits. But the false sense of security is very troubling, and discourages the use of real medications.

[hodgy]

Thanks again all - more good arguments surfacing - the heartfelt opinion built on genuine experience is particularly useful - thanks again (you know who you are :))

[Yahzi]

There are hundreds of books and teachers out there explaining all this, seek and you shall find.
As others have pointed out, your assertion that anyone who dies from a disease is a failed loser who didn't try hard enough is staggeringly offensive.

This is the moral equivalent of blaming a burgarly victim for not putting up enough locks on his house.

This is the moral equivalent of blaming a rape victim for wearing suggestive clothing.

Blaming the victim serves to make you feel better about yourself by pretending you will never make the same mistake, by inventing a sense of control where there is none; but it also serves to reveal your complete lack of moral fiber, compassion, fairness, and common sense.

As a demonstration of my possession of said qualities: when the inevitable disaster strikes you, I will not say "I told you so." Instead, I will sigh and do what I can to help. Like always.