Former Agnostic Exposed to Reiki ? - Page 6

Stray Cat · 6th November 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Hmm. I retract the relevant statement, then, after looking up the relevant post. That said, the first paragraph is all you really need to read to have a sufficient idea of the concepts being dealt with. It's honestly not hard to understand.

I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical.

"The term "energy" also has a scientific context, and the scientific foundations of physical energy are often confused or misused to justify a connection to a scientific basis for physical manifestations, properties, detectability, or sensing of psychic energy and other physic phenomena where no presently known scientific basis exists."
Source

Originally Posted by Aridas

I firmly disagree, given the simple fact that language is subjective and words often have significantly different meanings in different contexts.

And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum?

Originally Posted by Aridas

So long as conflation of the concepts being represented by the words is not occurring, there is no "misuse." I made it quite clear from the start what concept and meaning was being used and never attempted to conflate it with the scientific use of energy that you seem to be claiming is sacrosanct.

You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting).

And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two.

Originally Posted by Aridas

How many other posters have stated that they understood just fine, now?

Whether people understand you now doesn't not negate your prior use of ambiguity.
Even Pixel (who apparently already knows your PoV) said she could understand why others were confused.

Originally Posted by Aridas

You realize, of course, that this is compatible with what I said? It just deals with a slightly different question.

Compatible maybe, but your way of explaining it left gaps for gods to exist in. I don't mind creating somewhere for a God to live if one turns up but I wont be leaving a room spare for one on the off chance that one drops in.

Originally Posted by Aridas

Generally, I honestly don't care what people believe, for the record, just that they don't attempt to support their beliefs with bad arguments. I will fully agree that I haven't seen any good arguments for "woo," yet, and likely never will.

And yet the bad argument that there is some sort of "energy" (real or pretend) that can be manipulated by those of an esoteric bent gets a free pass?
And I'm not saying you support it or claim it, just that you don't (or at least didn't) seem to be arguing against it and certainly not pointing out the bad arguments those people use to justify their belief in it.

Originally Posted by Aridas

I'll accept this as reasonable, much as I consider the use of objective evidence to simply be a result of logic with bases intended to winnow out less useful and not useful worldviews.

And it only took three pages for us to get there.

StankApe · 6th November 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Equally, someone should be able to say that absolutes don't exist without people assuming that they are advocating any particular position.

What I've seen over the last couple of pages hasn't been critical thinking or scepticism, but people who made their mind up about what someone's position on something was and then tried to prove their initial assumptions correct by "read[ing] between the lines", rather than paying attention to what that person was actually saying. Starting from a conclusion is as far from critical thinking as I can imagine.

I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is.

If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo , but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking.

Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer.

Daylightstar · 6th November 2012, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
If there's no good reason to accept something to be the case, there's no good reason to let it affect one's actions or decisions.

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

Hi there Aridas, while waiting for you to answer my other question, reading the above led me to want to ask you another question.
What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 6th November 2012, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo , but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking.

I'm not going to get into one of these tedious arguments which go over and over old posts, particularly if they're not even going to be my posts. However, nothing in this paragraph does the slightest to disabuse me of the notion that you have to willfully misunderstand Aridas' posts in order to reach the conclusion that you are. In fact it helps to illustrate the post of mine that you quoted.

I would contend that if your argument relies on assuming motives and reading in what people "obviously" meant, while ignoring the actual things they've said, then it's not an argument that's built on a particularly sturdy foundation.

But, hey, I think I've said all I'm going to on this subject, as it seems that minds are made up. If you truly believe that what you're doing is critical thinking, then knock yourself out.

StankApe · 6th November 2012, 03:21 PM

personal attack duly noted......

I suspect you just go through life accepting anything people say without trying to discern what they are "really saying"?

that sounds pretty intense...........

Aridas · 6th November 2012, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Ok, thank you for that. Out of interest, is that something that you realised whilst you were training in Reiki or did had you come to that conclusion (that it can all be explained by placebo) prior to going on the training course?

I'll say the period of during to shortly after. My knowledge of Reiki was close to non-existent, before the training.

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

You misunderstand me. Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was not implying that science wanted to maintain the gaps in our knowledge, but saying that science accepts that there will always be gaps in knowledge. After all, without the gaps where is there to go next?

Amusing. You're stating this, now, after attempting to jab at me for having accepted this?

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

I think that filling in the gaps with something unevidenced curtails the pursuit of knowledge. However that's not the same as being open-minded. But I digress and we've been here a squillion times before, so, moving on....

Indeed, given that I NEVER ADVOCATED FILLING IN THE GAPS WITH SOMETHING UNEVIDENCED.

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

Aridas, you must think me a bit dim because I'm a little confused again. Earlier today, responding to Professor Yaffle, you wrote:

I may think that you're a bit dim, but if I do, it's not because of requests for clarification.

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

So do you not care that these people believe in the healing hands (e.g. Reiki, energy healing)? Because from what you're saying, don't they have to believe in the woo in order to make it work? But now you're saying you don't care what people believe and that you haven't seen any good arguments for woo. But you just gave us an argument for woo that you support! I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

I'm not contradicting myself, though, which is the important part. And seriously, accusing me of supporting woo, contrary to the evidence, again, is annoying. I'd suggest you stop it, because that is reason to count you to be dim. No, I don't actually care that a lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. However, I consider that to be significantly different, ethically, than intentionally deceiving another person for a limited amount of time to help them stop hurting themselves and ending the deception after helping them return to a healthier state of mind.

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Supplementary, complementary and alternative medicine* practitioners know as little about psychological health as they do about physical health. Why should it be ok for them to use deception on a patient when they have no idea if it will help them or harm them?

*SCAM

For the record, the issue you stated was significantly broader, which makes this to be a questionable follow-up. My simple answer to this question is two-fold. First, I have a knee-jerk reaction to your first sentence, given its obvious over-generalization. Second, I did not say that I supported anything less than mental health professionals making the call for whether a deception was likely to be warranted.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Aridas, are you convinced that reiki actually has a mode of action followed by effects (whether placebo or energy alignment/transfer etc) and that they are reliable to such an extent that it can be ethically offered commercially?

Mind you, I am not asking whether people always feel something, but whether you are convinced that there is an actual mode of action followed by actual effects.

Does it actually have a mode of action? Yes. Otherwise it would have no effect, ever. Is it reliable enough that it can be ethically offered commercially? That is questionable. Personally, as I've stated, I don't practice it commercially, nor do I try to do so. Other than that, I find it no less objectionable than the many ineffective products that line the shelves in many stores.

Originally Posted by StankApe

I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is.

My position is that I'm a magical fairy, of course, who is magicking up invisible and intangible dragons in your garage. Seriously.

Originally Posted by StankApe

If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo

Amazing that this didn't happen, despite your assertion.

Originally Posted by StankApe

but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible"

If it feels like a question dealing with what the "ultimate nature of reality" is, yes, I do and will admit to the possibility. If it's a question dealing with whether there's good reason to accept the possibility to be the case, then no, I don't accept that there is.

Originally Posted by StankApe

(but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity )

No.

Originally Posted by StankApe

and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes"

You may recall that it was someone else who stated that phrase.

Originally Posted by StankApe

and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking.

And I'd suggest that you're just trying to feed your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by StankApe

Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer.

I'd say, rather, that you're willfully trying to insert unintended meaning. I called you out, before, for quote mining, no less. Your example in the post in question had actually been dealt with in the post you quote mined, no less.

StankApe · 6th November 2012, 03:30 PM

no it had not...

sigh, look if you wanna believe in woo, that's your business, but the fact that I'm A) not trying to start trouble nor attacking you B) not the only one who interpreted your obtuse responses similarly and C) noticing a distinctive whispy type of responses to the questions asked of you that darn sure appear to be sidestepping the question of "do you believe in this nonsense" means that something is going on that's causing this issue not related to the mean old people asking you questions.

But , ya know, what, I don't care anymore..... I got bbq to eat

Aridas · 6th November 2012, 03:39 PM

[quote=Stray Cat;8748939]I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical./QUOTE]

Indeed. I pointed out that they do so, too. Hmm, or, more specifically, I pointed out that their use was pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, which, frankly, is pretty much the same thing.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum?

What matters is the topic of discussion and, most importantly, whether conflation is present. Given the topic of discussion, it was perfectly relevant, and at no point did I conflate concepts.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting).

If a meaning of a word is ambiguous in the first place, there should be no surprises that a definition of that meaning is ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two.

I'm simply not going to answer the rest, since I quite need to get to work. Enjoy the rest of your day/night.

Stray Cat · 6th November 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Indeed. I pointed out that they do so, too. Hmm, or, more specifically, I pointed out that their use was pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, which, frankly, is pretty much the same thing.

Well no you didn't, you mentioned pseudo science and non scientific in passing after you had offered up this little gem:

Quote:

"When dealing with "energy manipulation" for whatever purpose, there obviously has to be something that can be manipulated, generally with one's "willpower," "desire," and/or "actions (usually in an indirect sense such as saying the words of a spell to convince lightning to hit a particular tree or the ever popular laying on hands with the proper intent to heal in some way)," whether it be physical or non-physical, particle, waveform, feelings that somehow are separate from a being that can be shown to be alive in a normal sense, all kinds of underlying forces of reality that are and do various things, etc. Thus as a definition, "energy" in the context of the "energy manipulation," would basically be "something, often intangible, that can be affected by a person, usually consciously, in ways that generally do not logically proceed from the laws of physics as we know them."

So please forgive people for not taking much notice of your use of the two terms, given that you were admitting to being vague in the post where you mentioned them.

Originally Posted by Aridas

What matters is the topic of discussion and, most importantly, whether conflation is present. Given the topic of discussion, it was perfectly relevant,

If for "perfectly relevant" you mean 'vague and ambiguous'... Not something that usually goes down well in the JREF forum.

Originally Posted by Aridas

and at no point did I conflate concepts.

I never said you had.

Originally Posted by Aridas

If a meaning of a word is ambiguous in the first place, there should be no surprises that a definition of that meaning is ambiguous.

If the meaning of a word is ambiguous then there is no point in having or using that word unless you wish to use ambiguity as a cover for wooly thinking.
The point of an educational foundation is to cut through ambiguity, not to maintain it.

wasapi · 6th November 2012, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Resume

Wasn't this person, was it?
http://www.solaya.net/index.html

Oh . . . my, that photo on her website almost seems like a caricature or a parody.

I wouldn't buy toothpaste from her, much less pay her clear my chakra's. Or whatever.

Aridas · 7th November 2012, 05:13 AM

Hmm. I will apologize for my previous response to this, as it was born out of tiredness, limited time, and aggravation at the incessant assaults on my honesty and integrity, despite it being shown, continually, that the assaults were nothing more than grasping at rotten straws.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two.

The conflation IS the misuse. You accused me of misusing the term in the same way that those who misuse it did. That is very much false, much as you seem to have moved the goalposts somewhat. At no point, for the record, did I claim that the term wasn't misused by some. That in no way changes the accuracy of my statements when I was referring to the nonscientific and pseudoscientific concept(s) that they were actually attempting to support.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum?

What matters, very specifically, is whether meanings are being conflated. If a topic is on a particular subject, it is reasonable to assume that the most relevant usage of a word is the one being used, unless stated otherwise.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting).

I gave a clear explanation of an ambiguous usage of a word. That it sounded ambiguous is a consequence of the meaning.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Compatible maybe, but your way of explaining it left gaps for gods to exist in. I don't mind creating somewhere for a God to live if one turns up but I wont be leaving a room spare for one on the off chance that one drops in.

None that aren't intrinsically present anyways. My version, though, could be described as openminded, but with strong filters.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And yet the bad argument that there is some sort of "energy" (real or pretend) that can be manipulated by those of an esoteric bent gets a free pass?

No. If it's possible, it's possible. That gives it nothing more than that. More to the point of what I said, though, people, probably all people, for that matter, are wrong about all kinds of things. If I let myself be worried about that, I would enjoy life much, much less. I do care, however, when fallacious arguments are advanced and accepted, as that is actively promoting more wrong beliefs, regardless of whether the claim in question is actually correct or not.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And I'm not saying you support it or claim it, just that you don't (or at least didn't) seem to be arguing against it and certainly not pointing out the bad arguments those people use to justify their belief in it.

No one here is arguing for it, much less with fallacious arguments. I'd be arguing against a straw man were I to do so.

Originally Posted by StankApe

personal attack duly noted......

You do realize that you've been advancing a number of personal attacks on me with them being repeatedly shown to be not warranted, right?

Originally Posted by StankApe

I suspect you just go through life accepting anything people say without trying to discern what they are "really saying"?

that sounds pretty intense...........

Of course not. That doesn't mean that I go out of my way to make false claims about the person and willfully reinterpret what they consistently say to mean something completely different. I will address another of your posts, again, though, in demonstration.

Originally Posted by StankApe

I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is.

Exactly what I've said it is, repeatedly and consistently. I do not appreciate your continual aspersions regarding my honesty.

Originally Posted by StankApe

If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo

At no point did I say that this was the case. As I've explained elsewhere, I actually knew very little about Reiki before taking that class. My conclusion that the effects could be explained by means of the placebo effect was made tentatively during the training and more firmly afterwards. In short, this is a false claim and one that I certainly deserve an apology for.

Originally Posted by StankApe

but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible"

My position has been made clear, over and over again. The logic behind it has been presented.

Originally Posted by StankApe

(but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity )

This is a false claim, as well. Explaining my position and the reasoning behind it was in no way designed to obfuscate the conversation or create ambiguity.

Originally Posted by StankApe

and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking.

It's worth noting, again, that I did not make that quote. It's also worth noting that that's misrepresentation by omission, and thus dishonest, like the rest of this post.

Originally Posted by StankApe

Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer.

One which would be less accurate and less useful. Regardless, this is simply you attempting to continue to cast aspersions upon me.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case?

I may be being harsh, but I consider little less than a supporting claim that is not based on fallacious reasoning or logic at any level to be good reason to accept something to be the case.

Stray Cat · 7th November 2012, 07:25 AM

Excuses duly noted... Talking round in circles isn't my thing... discussion duly abandoned.

Dead horse for sale.

Daylightstar · 7th November 2012, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case?

I may be being harsh, but I consider little less than a supporting claim that is not based on fallacious reasoning or logic at any level to be good reason to accept something to be the case.

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

What do you mean by "a supporting claim"?

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you'll consider a claim based on correct reasoning and logic to be a good reason to accept something to be the case.
This, I would parse as meaning that all you'd require would be good reason and logic, i.e. plausibility.
Is this correct? Please set the record straight if not.

Daylightstar · 7th November 2012, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
Does it actually have a mode of action? Yes. Otherwise it would have no effect, ever. Is it reliable enough that it can be ethically offered commercially? That is questionable. Personally, as I've stated, I don't practice it commercially, nor do I try to do so. Other than that, I find it no less objectionable than the many ineffective products that line the shelves in many stores. ...

If you believe there is a mode of action and actual effects for reiki, then it puzzles me why you'd find it's reliability questionable.

Don't you then find reiki practically useless?

Aridas · 7th November 2012, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Excuses duly noted... Talking round in circles isn't my thing... discussion duly abandoned.

Dead horse for sale.

Right. Your position is untenable, so I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

What do you mean by "a supporting claim"?

Exactly that. Admittedly, "supporting" was an unnecessary addition, as a claim that did not support a position would not count as evidence for it.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you'll consider a claim based on correct reasoning and logic to be a good reason to accept something to be the case.

Yes. This is why we generally accept the results of science, for the record. This includes the entire chain of logic, though, including the bases that they rest upon.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

This, I would parse as meaning that all you'd require would be good reason and logic, i.e. plausibility.
Is this correct? Please set the record straight if not.

Hmm. Plausibility is... a little questionable, given connotations, but even then, if someone tries to pass off something plausible as being of a different probability than it actually is, given good reasoning and logic, that would be fallacious.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

If you believe there is a mode of action and actual effects for reiki, then it puzzles me why you'd find it's reliability questionable.

First I have to clarify, reliability to do what? It hasn't been established that it actually does anything beneficial other than create an environment where a person is expected to relax and let go of their troubles for a time and possibly, with the letting go, understand that some of their troubles are not so bad, after all.

cosmicaug · 7th November 2012, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Deranged

I'd like to know more about this. It makes me feel there is an explanation for the shower of what I call static electricity . I can't think of any other word for it but it had no pain involved and was quite strong. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Not quite true... Another completely reasonable explanation is trickery.
I can do a similar thing to that which was described in the OP.
I just admit that when I do it, it's a trick using a simple piece of equipment purchased from a magic shop.

This is a fairly poor demonstration of the same effect:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Derren Brown made a much better job of it once but I can't find a clip of it on YouTube.

It's linked from the related videos sidebar, actually:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

cosmicaug · 7th November 2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum?

The way I see it, Aridas used the term "energy" in a non-standard (but common --I don't know if I am making myself clear) way and was asked to clarify the use of the term. Following this, Aridas clarified the non-standard way in which the term was used (inasmuch as the term can be clarified which is not much as the term is inherently unclear when used in this way --but that is not the fault of Aridas). In the context of answering the question of how Aridas has used the term, I think the meaning of however Aridas has used the term would be the only reasonable meaning to convey in an attempt to answer the question. I don't really see the issue here.

Resume · 7th November 2012, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

The way I see it, Aridas used the term "energy" in a non-standard (but common --I don't know if I am making myself clear) way and was asked to clarify the use of the term. Following this, Aridas clarified the non-standard way in which the term was used (inasmuch as the term can be clarified which is not much as the term is inherently unclear when used in this way --but that is not the fault of Aridas). In the context of answering the question of how Aridas has used the term, I think the meaning of however Aridas has used the term would be the only reasonable meaning to convey in an attempt to answer the question. I don't really see the issue here.

It seems the definition of "energy" is getting any more concrete.

Stray Cat · 7th November 2012, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Aridas

Right. Your position is untenable, so I'm not surprised.

My position is evidenced by several pages of ambiguous bollocks written by you.

Your failure to acknowledge any ambiguity on your part when it is clear by the many responses you received where people were confused by your position makes discussion with you pointless.

Stray Cat · 7th November 2012, 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

It's linked from the related videos sidebar, actually:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It may be in your country. Channel Four has blocked in it in mine so it wouldn't show in the side bar actually.

Stray Cat · 7th November 2012, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by cosmicaug

I don't really see the issue here.

The issue is the way that Aridas continued to be evasive about their position in relation to whether he/she supported this nonsensical pointless "energy healing" guff.

It is this ambiguity alone which has lead to the confusion of several posters in this thread which in turn lead to the three pages of several posters (myself included) asking for clarification and three pages of Aridas refusing to acknowledge there was any confusion.

As this is an educational forum, It's worth pointing out that logic and sound reasoning leads to less confusion not maintaining the same level of confusion for several pages.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

My position is evidenced by several pages of ambiguous bollocks written by you.

What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts.

As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely. Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is.

Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe.

Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it.

Quote:

Your failure to acknowledge any ambiguity on your part when it is clear by the many responses you received where people were confused by your position makes discussion with you pointless.

Still, at least now you seem to be admitting that your conclusion may have been incorrect, albeit grudgingly and implicitly, and while still attempting to lay all of the culpability at Aridas' door. That's progress of sorts, I suppose.

Stray Cat · 8th November 2012, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts.

The facts of your exchange with Aridas as recorded in this thread don't seem to reach the same conclusion your are claiming now.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely.

My position is that Aridas was being ambiguous. That's not from reading between the lines, it's from reading the ambiguity in the lines he/she wrote.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is.

I've no idea what you're on about here.
If I press someone for clarification and it turns out that when they clarify, I agree with what they are saying, that is somehow a bad thing?
What a silly assertion to make.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe.

OK, let's get this clear
Aridas made some statements that were ambiguous and then when pressed by several people (you included) failed to define anything of any use to the discussion. Gradually (over several pages) some things were eventually explained and now most (if not all) people understand.
I'm not digging my heels in at all.
I'd like some acknowledgement that Aridas realises he/she wasn't originally being as clear and concise as he/she is claiming... The steadfast refusal of Aridas to acknowledge this is where the heels are being stuck in.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it.

Personally I'd suggest you link to a recent post where I have suggested that Aridas is peddling woo.
I have been concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous. And I admit that it was those ambiguous posts that lead me to examine the possibility that Aridas was just another one of those evasive woo peddlars that we see, who pretend to be all sceptic and scientific.
My position has changed... see how that works?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Still, at least now you seem to be admitting that your conclusion may have been incorrect, albeit grudgingly and implicitly, and while still attempting to lay all of the culpability at Aridas' door. That's progress of sorts, I suppose.

There's nothing "grudging" about it at all.
And I didn't have a conclusion, I had too much that needed clearing up before I could reach a conclusion. I waited until things became clearer before I made a conclusion...Now my conclusion is that if it's going to take three pages to squeeze some blood out of a stone, I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion.

Daylightstar · 8th November 2012, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts. ...

No, not interpreted, seen. The ambiguity is clearly there.

StankApe · 8th November 2012, 01:42 AM

I was the guilty party of making the woo peddling accusation. This may have been presumptive, but is generally the reality one is facing when a simple answer instead is stated a little "round back".

I made a mistake, I will probably make 14 more before I go to sleep

23_Tauri · 8th November 2012, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts.

As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely. Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is.

Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe.

Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it.

Squeegee B, with respect, when you had your exchange with Aridas back on pages 2 and 3 of this thread, you asked Aridas to explain the meaning of the word 'energy' in his/her post #59. Aridas responded in #79 by providing a wiki link to 'Qi energy'. This wasn't sufficient for you, as you came back in #82 by saying you wanted Aridas to provide a meaning specific to his/her use. Aridas replied in #84 to which you replied in turn: "So the answer, then, is somewhere between "very vaguely" and "not at all."

Aridas came back again in #88, to which you responded in #90 "You're right, vague to the point of useless. ".

No further exchange ensued regarding the use and definition of the term 'energy' between you and Aridas. This suggests that even though you asked him/her a number of times for a unambiguous definition you never actually got it. "Vague to the point of useless" was the best you got.

Now, I'm not criticising that exchange, but I do find it a little disingenuous of you to now have a pop at Stray Cat for similarly getting frustrated by the level of pussy footing around that has occurred on this thread. Are you or are you not now accusing Stray Cat for seeing ambiguity where there is none, when you yourself were on the sharp end of equivocation only a few pages back?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

The facts of your exchange with Aridas as recorded in this thread don't seem to reach the same conclusion your are claiming now.

So now you're reading between the lines of what I wrote?

Quote:

My position is that Aridas was being ambiguous. That's not from reading between the lines, it's from reading the ambiguity in the lines he/she wrote.

Yet I, and others, have not seen this ambiguity. So either we're mistaken in believing that we've understood what Aridas was saying perfectly clearly, or that Aridas was being ambiguous is not a fact, but an opinion.

Quote:

I've no idea what you're on about here.
If I press someone for clarification and it turns out that when they clarify, I agree with what they are saying, that is somehow a bad thing?
What a silly assertion to make.

It's not the agreeing that's silly, it's the continuing on as if you'd not had clarification long after you have.

Quote:

Aridas made some statements that were ambiguous and then when pressed by several people (you included) failed to define anything of any use to the discussion.

Again, you seem to be speaking for other people, rather than just yourself. Had I needed to keep pressing him/her, I would have done.

Quote:

I'd like some acknowledgement that Aridas realises he/she wasn't originally being as clear and concise as he/she is claiming... The steadfast refusal of Aridas to acknowledge this is where the heels are being stuck in.

But what if that's not actually true?

Quote:

Personally I'd suggest you link to a recent post where I have suggested that Aridas is peddling woo.
I have been concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous.

God, I promised myself I wouldn't get in to a tedious "going over old posts" debate, as they're extremely dull for all concerned and never end up achieving anything at all, however I'll will make an exception for this one post.

I don't believe that accusing Aridas of "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", or saying that "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into" is either "concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous" or merely "examin[ing] the possibility that Aridas was just another one of those evasive woo peddlars that we see".

Quote:

My position has changed... see how that works?

This is the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Perhaps I missed it earlier.

Quote:

And I didn't have a conclusion, I had too much that needed clearing up before I could reach a conclusion.

"push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into".

Quote:

I waited until things became clearer before I made a conclusion...Now my conclusion is that if it's going to take three pages to squeeze some blood out of a stone, I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion.

A confusion which seems mostly bourne out of your own inability to understand, rather than a lack of clear communication on Aridas' part.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

No, not interpreted, seen. The ambiguity is clearly there.

Post of the thread. Well done.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

I was the guilty party of making the woo peddling accusation. This may have been presumptive, but is generally the reality one is facing when a simple answer instead is stated a little "round back".

I made a mistake, I will probably make 14 more before I go to sleep

..and, like Stray Cat, it's the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Think how much more pleasant this thread could have been, had you both said as much earlier.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by 23_Tauri

No further exchange ensued regarding the use and definition of the term 'energy' between you and Aridas.

Because I was satisfied with the answer I got. As I explicitly said a few posts later when people started piling on Aridas, and using my exchange with him/her as a launching point to do so.

Quote:

This suggests that even though you asked him/her a number of times for a unambiguous definition you never actually got it.

More reading between the lines. There's a lot of that going around in this thread.

Quote:

"Vague to the point of useless" was the best you got.

The definition is vague to the point of useless. That's because the concept being defined is vague to the point of useless, not because the definition is ambiguous or unclear.

Quote:

Now, I'm not criticising that exchange, but I do find it a little disingenuous of you to now have a pop at Stray Cat for similarly getting frustrated by the level of pussy footing around that has occurred on this thread.

Even more assumptions. Where are you getting that I have been frustrated by Aridas at any point? And from where comes the notion that I've thought there has been pussy-footing?

Quote:

Are you or are you not now accusing Stray Cat for seeing ambiguity where there is none, when you yourself were on the sharp end of equivocation only a few pages back?

Not. I asked for clarification, got it, and went away happy. You could technically say that I saw equivocation in the first of Aridas' posts that I replied to, but you'd have to be pushing it to describe that as a "sharp end", given that I asked for clarification and within a few posts was perfectly satisfied with the clarification that I'd received (and, for the record, also had no problem whatsoever in understanding that Aridas didn't believe in the existence of this nebulous "energy").

Daylightstar · 8th November 2012, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
Exactly that. Admittedly, "supporting" was an unnecessary addition, as a claim that did not support a position would not count as evidence for it. ...

A claim never can count as evidence for a position.

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
Yes. This is why we generally accept the results of science, for the record. This includes the entire chain of logic, though, including the bases that they rest upon. ...

We do? No data or evidence required? What do you mean with "bases"?

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
Hmm. Plausibility is... a little questionable, given connotations, but even then, if someone tries to pass off something plausible as being of a different probability than it actually is, given good reasoning and logic, that would be fallacious. ...

So, good reason and logic, basically a very convincing story is enough for you to accept that something is the case.
Or how about:

Originally Posted by Aridas

... I certainly know what I felt and experienced, ...

does that do it for you?

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
First I have to clarify, reliability to do what? ...

To perform

Originally Posted by Aridas

... all of the effects of Reiki ...

as claimed, obviously.

Originally Posted by Aridas

...
It hasn't been established that it actually does anything beneficial other than create an environment where a person is expected to relax and let go of their troubles for a time and possibly, with the letting go, understand that some of their troubles are not so bad, after all.

Not been established? What about:

Originally Posted by Aridas

... all of the effects of Reiki ...

Don't you mean to say that there is no good reasoning or logic behind it? Or does your personal experience supplant reasoning and logic?

Daylightstar · 8th November 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Post of the thread. Well done.

Why thank you. Thank you very much indeed.

Daylightstar · 8th November 2012, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

...
and others, have not seen this ambiguity. ...

Why do you even write that, when you know that others have stated they did see the ambiguity?

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Why do you even write that, when you know that others have stated they did see the ambiguity?

So you're now going to claim that I'm being ambiguous. Oh, fun!

Let me clarify (just this once, as I don't really want to play this game). I didn't think what Aridas said was ambiguous. I am not the only poster in this thread to have said as much. Therefore Aridas' ambiguity is an opinion which not everybody shares, rather than a statement of fact.

Stray Cat · 8th November 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

This is the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Perhaps I missed it earlier.

It seems there's a lot you missed.

You also missed that part where I said I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

"push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into".

How very dishonest.... The very reason I ask people to link to posts instead of quoting them out of context.
What I actually said:

"Well actually I think you'll find that if you want to push BS esoteric nonsense it''ll be you that needs to do that with a different audience.
Notice that this is a sceptic forum where objective and scientific evidence is king, not wishy washy misuse of language by woo peddling hippies.
As for it being "common usage"... Sorry, but it simply isn't (except for it's use by those who commonly misuse the term)."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=142

Apart from that being at the point in the discussion where Aridas had not explained anything except to link to page full of woo nonsense. No where in the above do I accuse him/her of woo peddling.

And suggesting that someone wants to leave gaps for OTHER PEOPLE to put Gods into also has no relation to me accusing Aridas of peddling woo.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

A confusion which seems mostly bourne out of your own inability to understand, rather than a lack of clear communication on Aridas' part.

If it was only me who didn't understand I would most likely agree.
But it's not.... so I don't.

Stray Cat · 8th November 2012, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

So you're now going to claim that I'm being ambiguous. Oh, fun!

You're missing stuff again, please do keep up.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Let me clarify (just this once, as I don't really want to play this game). I didn't think what Aridas said was ambiguous. I am not the only poster in this thread to have said as much. Therefore Aridas' ambiguity is an opinion which not everybody shares, rather than a statement of fact.

No one is saying that everyone shares the opinion, but it is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave... sweet baby jeebus!

Now apart from ambiguity being denied by him/her, you are denying it too... even though you yourself had to ask more than once for an answer to the question you asked... This really is getting more ridiculous by the minute.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

It seems there's a lot you missed.

Feel free to link to where you did acknowledge it earlier.

Quote:

How very dishonest.... The very reason I ask people to link to posts instead of quoting them out of context.
What I actually said:

"Well actually I think you'll find that if you want to push BS esoteric nonsense it''ll be you that needs to do that with a different audience.
Notice that this is a sceptic forum where objective and scientific evidence is king, not wishy washy misuse of language by woo peddling hippies.
As for it being "common usage"... Sorry, but it simply isn't (except for it's use by those who commonly misuse the term)."
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=142

...a context which doesn't change what I quoted you as saying whatsoever.

Quote:

No where in the above do I accuse him/her of woo peddling.

...other than where you say s/he is "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense".

Quote:

And suggesting that someone wants to leave gaps for OTHER PEOPLE to put Gods into also has no relation to me accusing Aridas of peddling woo.

So while you thought that Aridas believed in the usage of "energy" that was under discussion and you said that you believed s/he wanted to leave gaps for gods, you didn't mean that you thought that s/he would fill those gaps with gods?

Quote:

If it was only me who didn't understand I would most likely agree.
But it's not.... so I don't.

That more than one person was confused (while, as I've said more than once, having to ignore things that Aridas had actually said in order to do so) doesn't mean that his/her posts were unclear.

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

You're missing stuff again, please do keep up.

No one is saying that everyone shares the opinion, but it is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave... sweet baby jeebus!

Straw man.

Quote:

Now apart from ambiguity being denied by him/her, you are denying it too... even though you yourself had to ask more than once for an answer to the question you asked... This really is getting more ridiculous by the minute.

And now you have to ignore things that I've explicitly said in order to maintain your viewpoint.

Daylightstar · 8th November 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

So you're now going to claim that I'm being ambiguous. Oh, fun!

Let me clarify (just this once, as I don't really want to play this game). I didn't think what Aridas said was ambiguous. I am not the only poster in this thread to have said as much. Therefore Aridas' ambiguity is an opinion which not everybody shares, rather than a statement of fact.

No, not at all. Your incorrect statement that others did not see the ambiguity in Aridas' post, was entirely unambiguous.

So you corrected towards a more realistic statement. Good for you.
The ambiguity in Aridas' posts however is plainly visible.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 8th November 2012, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

No, not at all. Your incorrect statement that others did not see the ambiguity in Aridas' post, was entirely unambiguous.

So you corrected towards a more realistic statement. Good for you.
The ambiguity in Aridas' posts however is plainly visible.

If you say so.

23_Tauri · 8th November 2012, 04:38 AM

Dudes, the energy in this thread is unbalancing my chakras.

6th November 2012, 11:40 AM	#201
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Aridas Hmm. I retract the relevant statement, then, after looking up the relevant post. That said, the first paragraph is all you really need to read to have a sufficient idea of the concepts being dealt with. It's honestly not hard to understand. I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical. "The term "energy" also has a scientific context, and the scientific foundations of physical energy are often confused or misused to justify a connection to a scientific basis for physical manifestations, properties, detectability, or sensing of psychic energy and other physic phenomena where no presently known scientific basis exists." Source Originally Posted by Aridas I firmly disagree, given the simple fact that language is subjective and words often have significantly different meanings in different contexts. And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum? Originally Posted by Aridas So long as conflation of the concepts being represented by the words is not occurring, there is no "misuse." I made it quite clear from the start what concept and meaning was being used and never attempted to conflate it with the scientific use of energy that you seem to be claiming is sacrosanct. You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting). And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two. Originally Posted by Aridas How many other posters have stated that they understood just fine, now? Whether people understand you now doesn't not negate your prior use of ambiguity. Even Pixel (who apparently already knows your PoV) said she could understand why others were confused. Originally Posted by Aridas You realize, of course, that this is compatible with what I said? It just deals with a slightly different question. Compatible maybe, but your way of explaining it left gaps for gods to exist in. I don't mind creating somewhere for a God to live if one turns up but I wont be leaving a room spare for one on the off chance that one drops in. Originally Posted by Aridas Generally, I honestly don't care what people believe, for the record, just that they don't attempt to support their beliefs with bad arguments. I will fully agree that I haven't seen any good arguments for "woo," yet, and likely never will. And yet the bad argument that there is some sort of "energy" (real or pretend) that can be manipulated by those of an esoteric bent gets a free pass? And I'm not saying you support it or claim it, just that you don't (or at least didn't) seem to be arguing against it and certainly not pointing out the bad arguments those people use to justify their belief in it. Originally Posted by Aridas I'll accept this as reasonable, much as I consider the use of objective evidence to simply be a result of logic with bases intended to winnow out less useful and not useful worldviews. And it only took three pages for us to get there.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

6th November 2012, 12:56 PM	#202
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Equally, someone should be able to say that absolutes don't exist without people assuming that they are advocating any particular position. What I've seen over the last couple of pages hasn't been critical thinking or scepticism, but people who made their mind up about what someone's position on something was and then tried to prove their initial assumptions correct by "read[ing] between the lines", rather than paying attention to what that person was actually saying. Starting from a conclusion is as far from critical thinking as I can imagine. I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is. If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo , but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking. Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

6th November 2012, 02:16 PM	#203
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Aridas ... If there's no good reason to accept something to be the case, there's no good reason to let it affect one's actions or decisions. ^{Hilite by Daylightstar} Hi there Aridas, while waiting for you to answer my other question, reading the above led me to want to ask you another question. What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

6th November 2012, 03:21 PM	#205
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	personal attack duly noted...... I suspect you just go through life accepting anything people say without trying to discern what they are "really saying"? that sounds pretty intense...........
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

6th November 2012, 03:24 PM	#206
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri Ok, thank you for that. Out of interest, is that something that you realised whilst you were training in Reiki or did had you come to that conclusion (that it can all be explained by placebo) prior to going on the training course? I'll say the period of during to shortly after. My knowledge of Reiki was close to non-existent, before the training. Originally Posted by 23_Tauri You misunderstand me. Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I was not implying that science wanted to maintain the gaps in our knowledge, but saying that science accepts that there will always be gaps in knowledge. After all, without the gaps where is there to go next? Amusing. You're stating this, now, after attempting to jab at me for having accepted this? Originally Posted by 23_Tauri I think that filling in the gaps with something unevidenced curtails the pursuit of knowledge. However that's not the same as being open-minded. But I digress and we've been here a squillion times before, so, moving on.... Indeed, given that I NEVER ADVOCATED FILLING IN THE GAPS WITH SOMETHING UNEVIDENCED. Originally Posted by 23_Tauri Aridas, you must think me a bit dim because I'm a little confused again. Earlier today, responding to Professor Yaffle, you wrote: I may think that you're a bit dim, but if I do, it's not because of requests for clarification. Originally Posted by 23_Tauri So do you not care that these people believe in the healing hands (e.g. Reiki, energy healing)? Because from what you're saying, don't they have to believe in the woo in order to make it work? But now you're saying you don't care what people believe and that you haven't seen any good arguments for woo. But you just gave us an argument for woo that you support! I don't understand. You seem to be contradicting yourself here. I'm not contradicting myself, though, which is the important part. And seriously, accusing me of supporting woo, contrary to the evidence, again, is annoying. I'd suggest you stop it, because that is reason to count you to be dim. No, I don't actually care that a lot of people believe in a lot of crazy things. However, I consider that to be significantly different, ethically, than intentionally deceiving another person for a limited amount of time to help them stop hurting themselves and ending the deception after helping them return to a healthier state of mind. Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Supplementary, complementary and alternative medicine* practitioners know as little about psychological health as they do about physical health. Why should it be ok for them to use deception on a patient when they have no idea if it will help them or harm them? SCAM For the record, the issue you stated was significantly broader, which makes this to be a questionable follow-up. My simple answer to this question is two-fold. First, I have a knee-jerk reaction to your first sentence, given its obvious over-generalization. Second, I did not say that I supported anything less than mental health professionals making the call for whether a deception was likely to be warranted. Originally Posted by Daylightstar* Aridas, are you convinced that reiki actually has a mode of action followed by effects (whether placebo or energy alignment/transfer etc) and that they are reliable to such an extent that it can be ethically offered commercially? Mind you, I am not asking whether people always feel something, but whether you are convinced that there is an actual mode of action followed by actual effects. Does it actually have a mode of action? Yes. Otherwise it would have no effect, ever. Is it reliable enough that it can be ethically offered commercially? That is questionable. Personally, as I've stated, I don't practice it commercially, nor do I try to do so. Other than that, I find it no less objectionable than the many ineffective products that line the shelves in many stores. Originally Posted by StankApe I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is. My position is that I'm a magical fairy, of course, who is magicking up invisible and intangible dragons in your garage. Seriously. Originally Posted by StankApe If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo Amazing that this didn't happen, despite your assertion. Originally Posted by StankApe but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" If it feels like a question dealing with what the "ultimate nature of reality" is, yes, I do and will admit to the possibility. If it's a question dealing with whether there's good reason to accept the possibility to be the case, then no, I don't accept that there is. Originally Posted by StankApe (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) No. Originally Posted by StankApe and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" You may recall that it was someone else who stated that phrase. Originally Posted by StankApe and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking. And I'd suggest that you're just trying to feed your preconceptions. Originally Posted by StankApe Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer. I'd say, rather, that you're willfully trying to insert unintended meaning. I called you out, before, for quote mining, no less. Your example in the post in question had actually been dealt with in the post you quote mined, no less.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

6th November 2012, 03:14 PM	#204
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by StankApe If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo , but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking. I'm not going to get into one of these tedious arguments which go over and over old posts, particularly if they're not even going to be my posts. However, nothing in this paragraph does the slightest to disabuse me of the notion that you have to willfully misunderstand Aridas' posts in order to reach the conclusion that you are. In fact it helps to illustrate the post of mine that you quoted. I would contend that if your argument relies on assuming motives and reading in what people "obviously" meant, while ignoring the actual things they've said, then it's not an argument that's built on a particularly sturdy foundation. But, hey, I think I've said all I'm going to on this subject, as it seems that minds are made up. If you truly believe that what you're doing is critical thinking, then knock yourself out.

6th November 2012, 03:30 PM	#207
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	no it had not... sigh, look if you wanna believe in woo, that's your business, but the fact that I'm A) not trying to start trouble nor attacking you B) not the only one who interpreted your obtuse responses similarly and C) noticing a distinctive whispy type of responses to the questions asked of you that darn sure appear to be sidestepping the question of "do you believe in this nonsense" means that something is going on that's causing this issue not related to the mean old people asking you questions. But , ya know, what, I don't care anymore..... I got bbq to eat
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

6th November 2012, 03:39 PM	#208
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	[quote=Stray Cat;8748939]I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical./QUOTE] Indeed. I pointed out that they do so, too. Hmm, or, more specifically, I pointed out that their use was pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, which, frankly, is pretty much the same thing. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum? What matters is the topic of discussion and, most importantly, whether conflation is present. Given the topic of discussion, it was perfectly relevant, and at no point did I conflate concepts. Originally Posted by Stray Cat You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting). If a meaning of a word is ambiguous in the first place, there should be no surprises that a definition of that meaning is ambiguous. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two. I'm simply not going to answer the rest, since I quite need to get to work. Enjoy the rest of your day/night.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

6th November 2012, 05:19 PM	#209
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Aridas Indeed. I pointed out that they do so, too. Hmm, or, more specifically, I pointed out that their use was pseudo-scientific or non-scientific, which, frankly, is pretty much the same thing. Well no you didn't, you mentioned pseudo science and non scientific in passing after you had offered up this little gem: Quote: "When dealing with "energy manipulation" for whatever purpose, there obviously has to be something that can be manipulated, generally with one's "willpower," "desire," and/or "actions (usually in an indirect sense such as saying the words of a spell to convince lightning to hit a particular tree or the ever popular laying on hands with the proper intent to heal in some way)," whether it be physical or non-physical, particle, waveform, feelings that somehow are separate from a being that can be shown to be alive in a normal sense, all kinds of underlying forces of reality that are and do various things, etc. Thus as a definition, "energy" in the context of the "energy manipulation," would basically be "something, often intangible, that can be affected by a person, usually consciously, in ways that generally do not logically proceed from the laws of physics as we know them." So please forgive people for not taking much notice of your use of the two terms, given that you were admitting to being vague in the post where you mentioned them. Originally Posted by Aridas What matters is the topic of discussion and, most importantly, whether conflation is present. Given the topic of discussion, it was perfectly relevant, If for "perfectly relevant" you mean 'vague and ambiguous'... Not something that usually goes down well in the JREF forum. Originally Posted by Aridas and at no point did I conflate concepts. I never said you had. Originally Posted by Aridas If a meaning of a word is ambiguous in the first place, there should be no surprises that a definition of that meaning is ambiguous. If the meaning of a word is ambiguous then there is no point in having or using that word unless you wish to use ambiguity as a cover for wooly thinking. The point of an educational foundation is to cut through ambiguity, not to maintain it.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

6th November 2012, 05:45 PM	#210
wasapi Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,382	Originally Posted by Resume Wasn't this person, was it? http://www.solaya.net/index.html Oh . . . my, that photo on her website almost seems like a caricature or a parody. I wouldn't buy toothpaste from her, much less pay her clear my chakra's. Or whatever.
wasapi Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,382	__________________ Julia

7th November 2012, 05:13 AM	#211
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Hmm. I will apologize for my previous response to this, as it was born out of tiredness, limited time, and aggravation at the incessant assaults on my honesty and integrity, despite it being shown, continually, that the assaults were nothing more than grasping at rotten straws. Originally Posted by Stray Cat I do understand it. It even says in the article that new agers often conflate their (mis)use of the word energy with the scientific and actual meaning, and regularly use it to pretend to make something pretend sound like it's something real and physical. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And to be clear here: I wasn't saying you had conflated one use with another, I was saying that you were using the word in the context of those who regularly conflate the two. The conflation IS the misuse. You accused me of misusing the term in the same way that those who misuse it did. That is very much false, much as you seem to have moved the goalposts somewhat. At no point, for the record, did I claim that the term wasn't misused by some. That in no way changes the accuracy of my statements when I was referring to the nonscientific and pseudoscientific concept(s) that they were actually attempting to support. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum? What matters, very specifically, is whether meanings are being conflated. If a topic is on a particular subject, it is reasonable to assume that the most relevant usage of a word is the one being used, unless stated otherwise. Originally Posted by Stray Cat You used ambiguous language to explain an ambiguous (mis)use of a word which has a very specific meaning (remembering the context of where you are posting). I gave a clear explanation of an ambiguous usage of a word. That it sounded ambiguous is a consequence of the meaning. Originally Posted by Stray Cat Compatible maybe, but your way of explaining it left gaps for gods to exist in. I don't mind creating somewhere for a God to live if one turns up but I wont be leaving a room spare for one on the off chance that one drops in. None that aren't intrinsically present anyways. My version, though, could be described as openminded, but with strong filters. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And yet the bad argument that there is some sort of "energy" (real or pretend) that can be manipulated by those of an esoteric bent gets a free pass? No. If it's possible, it's possible. That gives it nothing more than that. More to the point of what I said, though, people, probably all people, for that matter, are wrong about all kinds of things. If I let myself be worried about that, I would enjoy life much, much less. I do care, however, when fallacious arguments are advanced and accepted, as that is actively promoting more wrong beliefs, regardless of whether the claim in question is actually correct or not. Originally Posted by Stray Cat And I'm not saying you support it or claim it, just that you don't (or at least didn't) seem to be arguing against it and certainly not pointing out the bad arguments those people use to justify their belief in it. No one here is arguing for it, much less with fallacious arguments. I'd be arguing against a straw man were I to do so. Originally Posted by StankApe personal attack duly noted...... You do realize that you've been advancing a number of personal attacks on me with them being repeatedly shown to be not warranted, right? Originally Posted by StankApe I suspect you just go through life accepting anything people say without trying to discern what they are "really saying"? that sounds pretty intense........... Of course not. That doesn't mean that I go out of my way to make false claims about the person and willfully reinterpret what they consistently say to mean something completely different. I will address another of your posts, again, though, in demonstration. Originally Posted by StankApe I heartily disagree, I have been trying to determine exactly what this position really is. Exactly what I've said it is, repeatedly and consistently. I do not appreciate your continual aspersions regarding my honesty. Originally Posted by StankApe If you think that a person can enroll in classes on Reiki under the guise of thinking it's all placebo At no point did I say that this was the case. As I've explained elsewhere, I actually knew very little about Reiki before taking that class. My conclusion that the effects could be explained by means of the placebo effect was made tentatively during the training and more firmly afterwards. In short, this is a false claim and one that I certainly deserve an apology for. Originally Posted by StankApe but when pushed to take a stand on what they personally feel is going on in regards to the "energy transfer" respond that it's "possible" My position has been made clear, over and over again. The logic behind it has been presented. Originally Posted by StankApe (but only in long gobbledy gook paragraphs obviously designed to obfuscate the conversation and create ambiguity ) This is a false claim, as well. Explaining my position and the reasoning behind it was in no way designed to obfuscate the conversation or create ambiguity. Originally Posted by StankApe and then when asked about this statement of "possibility" counter that "well everything is technically possible because we can't deal with absolutes" and not be trying to peddle woo, then i would suggest you aren't doing much critical thinking. It's worth noting, again, that I did not make that quote. It's also worth noting that that's misrepresentation by omission, and thus dishonest, like the rest of this post. Originally Posted by StankApe Maybe Aridas did it by accident, but the only way we can figure that out is to get a nice, easy ,straight answer. One which would be less accurate and less useful. Regardless, this is simply you attempting to continue to cast aspersions upon me. Originally Posted by Daylightstar What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case? I may be being harsh, but I consider little less than a supporting claim that is not based on fallacious reasoning or logic at any level to be good reason to accept something to be the case.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; 7th November 2012 at 06:21 AM. Reason: though to that, removed a comma to make a meaning more clear

7th November 2012, 07:25 AM	#212
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Excuses duly noted... Talking round in circles isn't my thing... discussion duly abandoned. Dead horse for sale.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

7th November 2012, 08:14 AM	#213
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Aridas Originally Posted by Daylightstar What would you consider a good reason to accept something to be the case? I may be being harsh, but I consider little less than a supporting claim that is not based on fallacious reasoning or logic at any level to be good reason to accept something to be the case. ^{Hilite by Daylightstar} What do you mean by "a supporting claim"? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you'll consider a claim based on correct reasoning and logic to be a good reason to accept something to be the case. This, I would parse as meaning that all you'd require would be good reason and logic, i.e. plausibility. Is this correct? Please set the record straight if not.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

7th November 2012, 08:24 AM	#214
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Aridas ... Does it actually have a mode of action? Yes. Otherwise it would have no effect, ever. Is it reliable enough that it can be ethically offered commercially? That is questionable. Personally, as I've stated, I don't practice it commercially, nor do I try to do so. Other than that, I find it no less objectionable than the many ineffective products that line the shelves in many stores. ... If you believe there is a mode of action and actual effects for reiki, then it puzzles me why you'd find it's reliability questionable. Don't you then find reiki practically useless?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium Last edited by Daylightstar; 7th November 2012 at 08:44 AM. Reason: typo

7th November 2012, 03:38 PM	#215
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,107	Originally Posted by Stray Cat Excuses duly noted... Talking round in circles isn't my thing... discussion duly abandoned. Dead horse for sale. Right. Your position is untenable, so I'm not surprised. Originally Posted by Daylightstar ^{Hilite by Daylightstar} What do you mean by "a supporting claim"? Exactly that. Admittedly, "supporting" was an unnecessary addition, as a claim that did not support a position would not count as evidence for it. Originally Posted by Daylightstar If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you'll consider a claim based on correct reasoning and logic to be a good reason to accept something to be the case. Yes. This is why we generally accept the results of science, for the record. This includes the entire chain of logic, though, including the bases that they rest upon. Originally Posted by Daylightstar This, I would parse as meaning that all you'd require would be good reason and logic, i.e. plausibility. Is this correct? Please set the record straight if not. Hmm. Plausibility is... a little questionable, given connotations, but even then, if someone tries to pass off something plausible as being of a different probability than it actually is, given good reasoning and logic, that would be fallacious. Originally Posted by Daylightstar If you believe there is a mode of action and actual effects for reiki, then it puzzles me why you'd find it's reliability questionable. First I have to clarify, reliability to do what? It hasn't been established that it actually does anything beneficial other than create an environment where a person is expected to relax and let go of their troubles for a time and possibly, with the letting go, understand that some of their troubles are not so bad, after all.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

7th November 2012, 03:57 PM	#217
cosmicaug Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 344	Originally Posted by Stray Cat And what meaning do you think would be most contextual for the James Randi Educational Foundation forum? The way I see it, Aridas used the term "energy" in a non-standard (but common --I don't know if I am making myself clear) way and was asked to clarify the use of the term. Following this, Aridas clarified the non-standard way in which the term was used (inasmuch as the term can be clarified which is not much as the term is inherently unclear when used in this way --but that is not the fault of Aridas). In the context of answering the question of how Aridas has used the term, I think the meaning of however Aridas has used the term would be the only reasonable meaning to convey in an attempt to answer the question. I don't really see the issue here.

7th November 2012, 04:58 PM	#218
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,015	Originally Posted by cosmicaug The way I see it, Aridas used the term "energy" in a non-standard (but common --I don't know if I am making myself clear) way and was asked to clarify the use of the term. Following this, Aridas clarified the non-standard way in which the term was used (inasmuch as the term can be clarified which is not much as the term is inherently unclear when used in this way --but that is not the fault of Aridas). In the context of answering the question of how Aridas has used the term, I think the meaning of however Aridas has used the term would be the only reasonable meaning to convey in an attempt to answer the question. I don't really see the issue here. It seems the definition of "energy" is getting any more concrete.
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,015

7th November 2012, 09:22 PM	#219
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Aridas Right. Your position is untenable, so I'm not surprised. My position is evidenced by several pages of ambiguous bollocks written by you. Your failure to acknowledge any ambiguity on your part when it is clear by the many responses you received where people were confused by your position makes discussion with you pointless.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

7th November 2012, 10:09 PM	#221
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by cosmicaug I don't really see the issue here. The issue is the way that Aridas continued to be evasive about their position in relation to whether he/she supported this nonsensical pointless "energy healing" guff. It is this ambiguity alone which has lead to the confusion of several posters in this thread which in turn lead to the three pages of several posters (myself included) asking for clarification and three pages of Aridas refusing to acknowledge there was any confusion. As this is an educational forum, It's worth pointing out that logic and sound reasoning leads to less confusion not maintaining the same level of confusion for several pages.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

8th November 2012, 12:43 AM	#222
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Stray Cat My position is evidenced by several pages of ambiguous bollocks written by you. What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts. As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely. Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is. Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe. Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it. Quote: Your failure to acknowledge any ambiguity on your part when it is clear by the many responses you received where people were confused by your position makes discussion with you pointless. Still, at least now you seem to be admitting that your conclusion may have been incorrect, albeit grudgingly and implicitly, and while still attempting to lay all of the culpability at Aridas' door. That's progress of sorts, I suppose.

8th November 2012, 01:25 AM	#223
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts. The facts of your exchange with Aridas as recorded in this thread don't seem to reach the same conclusion your are claiming now. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely. My position is that Aridas was being ambiguous. That's not from reading between the lines, it's from reading the ambiguity in the lines he/she wrote. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is. I've no idea what you're on about here. If I press someone for clarification and it turns out that when they clarify, I agree with what they are saying, that is somehow a bad thing? What a silly assertion to make. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe. OK, let's get this clear Aridas made some statements that were ambiguous and then when pressed by several people (you included) failed to define anything of any use to the discussion. Gradually (over several pages) some things were eventually explained and now most (if not all) people understand. I'm not digging my heels in at all. I'd like some acknowledgement that Aridas realises he/she wasn't originally being as clear and concise as he/she is claiming... The steadfast refusal of Aridas to acknowledge this is where the heels are being stuck in. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it. Personally I'd suggest you link to a recent post where I have suggested that Aridas is peddling woo. I have been concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous. And I admit that it was those ambiguous posts that lead me to examine the possibility that Aridas was just another one of those evasive woo peddlars that we see, who pretend to be all sceptic and scientific. My position has changed... see how that works? Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Still, at least now you seem to be admitting that your conclusion may have been incorrect, albeit grudgingly and implicitly, and while still attempting to lay all of the culpability at Aridas' door. That's progress of sorts, I suppose. There's nothing "grudging" about it at all. And I didn't have a conclusion, I had too much that needed clearing up before I could reach a conclusion. I waited until things became clearer before I made a conclusion...Now my conclusion is that if it's going to take three pages to squeeze some blood out of a stone, I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

8th November 2012, 01:40 AM	#224
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts. ... No, not interpreted, seen. The ambiguity is clearly there.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

8th November 2012, 01:42 AM	#225
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	I was the guilty party of making the woo peddling accusation. This may have been presumptive, but is generally the reality one is facing when a simple answer instead is stated a little "round back". I made a mistake, I will probably make 14 more before I go to sleep
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

8th November 2012, 01:44 AM	#226
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim What you have interpreted as ambiguous bollocks. Others of us have had no problem whatsoever understanding. Don't confuse your opinions with facts. As I've pointed out before, if your position depends on "read[ing] between the lines" and ignoring what the person you're arguing against is actually saying, then it's probably a good idea to examine that position a little more closely. Furthermore, if you find yourself berating someone for making statements that, when pushed, you have to admit that you actually agree with, then perhaps it's worth considering that your argument isn't as strong as you think it is. Or you could dig your heels in and appeal to the authority of "many responses", while ignoring the responses that don't support what you'd like to believe. Personally, I'd suggest letting go of the preconception that Aridas is "peddling woo", going back over the thread and re-reading it. Squeegee B, with respect, when you had your exchange with Aridas back on pages 2 and 3 of this thread, you asked Aridas to explain the meaning of the word 'energy' in his/her post #59. Aridas responded in #79 by providing a wiki link to 'Qi energy'. This wasn't sufficient for you, as you came back in #82 by saying you wanted Aridas to provide a meaning specific to his/her use. Aridas replied in #84 to which you replied in turn: "So the answer, then, is somewhere between "very vaguely" and "not at all." Aridas came back again in #88, to which you responded in #90 "You're right, vague to the point of useless. ". No further exchange ensued regarding the use and definition of the term 'energy' between you and Aridas. This suggests that even though you asked him/her a number of times for a unambiguous definition you never actually got it. "Vague to the point of useless" was the best you got. Now, I'm not criticising that exchange, but I do find it a little disingenuous of you to now have a pop at Stray Cat for similarly getting frustrated by the level of pussy footing around that has occurred on this thread. Are you or are you not now accusing Stray Cat for seeing ambiguity where there is none, when you yourself were on the sharp end of equivocation only a few pages back?
	__________________ Little Miss Witchcraft, she's not made of straw.

8th November 2012, 02:24 AM	#227
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Stray Cat The facts of your exchange with Aridas as recorded in this thread don't seem to reach the same conclusion your are claiming now. So now you're reading between the lines of what I wrote? Quote: My position is that Aridas was being ambiguous. That's not from reading between the lines, it's from reading the ambiguity in the lines he/she wrote. Yet I, and others, have not seen this ambiguity. So either we're mistaken in believing that we've understood what Aridas was saying perfectly clearly, or that Aridas was being ambiguous is not a fact, but an opinion. Quote: I've no idea what you're on about here. If I press someone for clarification and it turns out that when they clarify, I agree with what they are saying, that is somehow a bad thing? What a silly assertion to make. It's not the agreeing that's silly, it's the continuing on as if you'd not had clarification long after you have. Quote: Aridas made some statements that were ambiguous and then when pressed by several people (you included) failed to define anything of any use to the discussion. Again, you seem to be speaking for other people, rather than just yourself. Had I needed to keep pressing him/her, I would have done. Quote: I'd like some acknowledgement that Aridas realises he/she wasn't originally being as clear and concise as he/she is claiming... The steadfast refusal of Aridas to acknowledge this is where the heels are being stuck in. But what if that's not actually true? Quote: Personally I'd suggest you link to a recent post where I have suggested that Aridas is peddling woo. I have been concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous. God, I promised myself I wouldn't get in to a tedious "going over old posts" debate, as they're extremely dull for all concerned and never end up achieving anything at all, however I'll will make an exception for this one post. I don't believe that accusing Aridas of "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", or saying that "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into" is either "concentrating on the fact that the original posts were ambiguous" or merely "examin[ing] the possibility that Aridas was just another one of those evasive woo peddlars that we see". Quote: My position has changed... see how that works? This is the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Perhaps I missed it earlier. Quote: And I didn't have a conclusion, I had too much that needed clearing up before I could reach a conclusion. "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into". Quote: I waited until things became clearer before I made a conclusion...Now my conclusion is that if it's going to take three pages to squeeze some blood out of a stone, I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion. A confusion which seems mostly bourne out of your own inability to understand, rather than a lack of clear communication on Aridas' part.

8th November 2012, 02:25 AM	#228
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Daylightstar No, not interpreted, seen. The ambiguity is clearly there. Post of the thread. Well done.

8th November 2012, 02:26 AM	#229
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by StankApe I was the guilty party of making the woo peddling accusation. This may have been presumptive, but is generally the reality one is facing when a simple answer instead is stated a little "round back". I made a mistake, I will probably make 14 more before I go to sleep ..and, like Stray Cat, it's the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Think how much more pleasant this thread could have been, had you both said as much earlier.

8th November 2012, 02:37 AM	#230
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by 23_Tauri No further exchange ensued regarding the use and definition of the term 'energy' between you and Aridas. Because I was satisfied with the answer I got. As I explicitly said a few posts later when people started piling on Aridas, and using my exchange with him/her as a launching point to do so. Quote: This suggests that even though you asked him/her a number of times for a unambiguous definition you never actually got it. More reading between the lines. There's a lot of that going around in this thread. Quote: "Vague to the point of useless" was the best you got. The definition is vague to the point of useless. That's because the concept being defined is vague to the point of useless, not because the definition is ambiguous or unclear. Quote: Now, I'm not criticising that exchange, but I do find it a little disingenuous of you to now have a pop at Stray Cat for similarly getting frustrated by the level of pussy footing around that has occurred on this thread. Even more assumptions. Where are you getting that I have been frustrated by Aridas at any point? And from where comes the notion that I've thought there has been pussy-footing? Quote: Are you or are you not now accusing Stray Cat for seeing ambiguity where there is none, when you yourself were on the sharp end of equivocation only a few pages back? Not. I asked for clarification, got it, and went away happy. You could technically say that I saw equivocation in the first of Aridas' posts that I replied to, but you'd have to be pushing it to describe that as a "sharp end", given that I asked for clarification and within a few posts was perfectly satisfied with the clarification that I'd received (and, for the record, also had no problem whatsoever in understanding that Aridas didn't believe in the existence of this nebulous "energy").

8th November 2012, 02:42 AM	#231
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Aridas ... Exactly that. Admittedly, "supporting" was an unnecessary addition, as a claim that did not support a position would not count as evidence for it. ... A claim never can count as evidence for a position. Originally Posted by Aridas ... Yes. This is why we generally accept the results of science, for the record. This includes the entire chain of logic, though, including the bases that they rest upon. ... We do? No data or evidence required? What do you mean with "bases"? Originally Posted by Aridas ... Hmm. Plausibility is... a little questionable, given connotations, but even then, if someone tries to pass off something plausible as being of a different probability than it actually is, given good reasoning and logic, that would be fallacious. ... So, good reason and logic, basically a very convincing story is enough for you to accept that something is the case. Or how about: Originally Posted by Aridas ... I certainly know what I felt and experienced, ... does that do it for you? Originally Posted by Aridas ... First I have to clarify, reliability to do what? ... To perform Originally Posted by Aridas ... all of the effects of Reiki ... as claimed, obviously. Originally Posted by Aridas ... It hasn't been established that it actually does anything beneficial other than create an environment where a person is expected to relax and let go of their troubles for a time and possibly, with the letting go, understand that some of their troubles are not so bad, after all. Not been established? What about: Originally Posted by Aridas ... all of the effects of Reiki ... Don't you mean to say that there is no good reasoning or logic behind it? Or does your personal experience supplant reasoning and logic?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium Last edited by Daylightstar; 8th November 2012 at 02:55 AM. Reason: Redundant "What about" removed

8th November 2012, 02:46 AM	#232
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Post of the thread. Well done. Why thank you. Thank you very much indeed.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

8th November 2012, 02:52 AM	#233
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,184	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim ... and others, have not seen this ambiguity. ... Why do you even write that, when you know that others have stated they did see the ambiguity?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

8th November 2012, 03:06 AM	#234
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Daylightstar Why do you even write that, when you know that others have stated they did see the ambiguity? So you're now going to claim that I'm being ambiguous. Oh, fun! Let me clarify (just this once, as I don't really want to play this game). I didn't think what Aridas said was ambiguous. I am not the only poster in this thread to have said as much. Therefore Aridas' ambiguity is an opinion which not everybody shares, rather than a statement of fact.

8th November 2012, 03:24 AM	#235
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim This is the first time I've seen you acknowledge this. Perhaps I missed it earlier. It seems there's a lot you missed. You also missed that part where I said I don't want to spend the next three pages arguing about how he/she could have put a much quicker stop to the confusion. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense", "it seems to me that you deliberately want to keep gaps for people to put gods into". How very dishonest.... The very reason I ask people to link to posts instead of quoting them out of context. What I actually said: "Well actually I think you'll find that if you want to push BS esoteric nonsense it''ll be you that needs to do that with a different audience. Notice that this is a sceptic forum where objective and scientific evidence is king, not wishy washy misuse of language by woo peddling hippies. As for it being "common usage"... Sorry, but it simply isn't (except for it's use by those who commonly misuse the term)." http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=142 Apart from that being at the point in the discussion where Aridas had not explained anything except to link to page full of woo nonsense. No where in the above do I accuse him/her of woo peddling. And suggesting that someone wants to leave gaps for OTHER PEOPLE to put Gods into also has no relation to me accusing Aridas of peddling woo. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim A confusion which seems mostly bourne out of your own inability to understand, rather than a lack of clear communication on Aridas' part. If it was only me who didn't understand I would most likely agree. But it's not.... so I don't.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

8th November 2012, 03:32 AM	#236
Stray Cat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Land That Time Forgot Posts: 6,508	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim So you're now going to claim that I'm being ambiguous. Oh, fun! You're missing stuff again, please do keep up. Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim Let me clarify (just this once, as I don't really want to play this game). I didn't think what Aridas said was ambiguous. I am not the only poster in this thread to have said as much. Therefore Aridas' ambiguity is an opinion which not everybody shares, rather than a statement of fact. No one is saying that everyone shares the opinion, but it is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave... sweet baby jeebus! Now apart from ambiguity being denied by him/her, you are denying it too... even though you yourself had to ask more than once for an answer to the question you asked... This really is getting more ridiculous by the minute.
	__________________ It's only my madness that stops me from going insane! Last edited by Stray Cat; 8th November 2012 at 03:36 AM.

8th November 2012, 04:14 AM	#237
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,250	Originally Posted by Stray Cat It seems there's a lot you missed. Feel free to link to where you did acknowledge it earlier. Quote: How very dishonest.... The very reason I ask people to link to posts instead of quoting them out of context. What I actually said: "Well actually I think you'll find that if you want to push BS esoteric nonsense it''ll be you that needs to do that with a different audience. Notice that this is a sceptic forum where objective and scientific evidence is king, not wishy washy misuse of language by woo peddling hippies. As for it being "common usage"... Sorry, but it simply isn't (except for it's use by those who commonly misuse the term)." http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=142 ...a context which doesn't change what I quoted you as saying whatsoever. Quote: No where in the above do I accuse him/her of woo peddling. ...other than where you say s/he is "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense". Quote: And suggesting that someone wants to leave gaps for OTHER PEOPLE to put Gods into also has no relation to me accusing Aridas of peddling woo. So while you thought that Aridas believed in the usage of "energy" that was under discussion and you said that you believed s/he wanted to leave gaps for gods, you didn't mean that you thought that s/he would fill those gaps with gods? Quote: If it was only me who didn't understand I would most likely agree. But it's not.... so I don't. That more than one person was confused (while, as I've said more than once, having to ignore things that Aridas had actually said in order to do so) doesn't mean that his/her posts were unclear. Originally Posted by Stray Cat You're missing stuff again, please do keep up. No one is saying that everyone shares the opinion, but it is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave... sweet baby jeebus! Straw man. Quote: Now apart from ambiguity being denied by him/her, you are denying it too... even though you yourself had to ask more than once for an answer to the question you asked... This really is getting more ridiculous by the minute. And now you have to ignore things that I've explicitly said in order to maintain your viewpoint.