JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 8th November 2012, 05:46 AM   #241
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Feel free to link to where you did acknowledge it earlier.
The last sentence in this post is one instance.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...a context which doesn't change what I quoted you as saying whatsoever.
Yes it does... I'll explain so it's clear...

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
...other than where you say s/he is "push[ing] BS esoteric nonsense".
Read it again, I don't say Aridas is pushing BS esoteric nonsense.. That is your distorted interpretation.

I suggest that if he/she wants to push BS esoteric nonsense, they need to do it with a different audience.

In all honestly, I think you have to willfully misinterpret [my] post in order to believe your BS.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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?
What I believed is not important, you are not phychic. What is important is is once his/her position became more clear, that nowhere did I accuse Aridas of peddling woo... so please stop arguing round in circles you're becoming very tedious very quickly.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
You aren't usually this dumb... They are/were OBVIOUSLY unclear to some people.... FCOL!

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Straw man.
No it's not, that's just your cop out.
It is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
And now you have to ignore things that I've explicitly said in order to maintain your viewpoint.
I'm not ignoring anything. You had to ask twice, you weren't satisfied with the first answer (because it didn't answer the question you asked ie: was evasive).

You were eventually satisfied with the response... great, you are more easily satisfied than other people... congratulations on that.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!

Last edited by Stray Cat; 8th November 2012 at 05:48 AM.
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 06:20 AM   #242
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,691
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
The last sentence in this post is one instance.
Fair enough. Are you identifying that as the point at which you changed your mind from thinking that Aridas believed in "energy", as it had been defined earlier?

Quote:
Yes it does... I'll explain so it's clear...


Read it again, I don't say Aridas is pushing BS esoteric nonsense.. That is your distorted interpretation.

I suggest that if he/she wants to push BS esoteric nonsense, they need to do it with a different audience.
Can you admit, at least, that you phrased it ambiguously? Given that "if you want to x" is a common turn of phrase which means exactly what I interpreted it to mean?

Quote:
In all honestly, I think you have to willfully misinterpret [my] post in order to believe your BS.
Ah, no you can't. Okay.

Quote:
You aren't usually this dumb... They are/were OBVIOUSLY unclear to some people.... FCOL!
That some people didn't understand what was being said doesn't mean that what was being said was unclear.

Quote:
No it's not, that's just your cop out.
More assumptions. This thread would have gone a lot smoother if there were fewer assumptions and more thinking.

Quote:
It is obvious on page 3 of this thread that people were confused by the responses Aridas gave
Repeating a straw man doesn't make it less of a straw man.

Quote:
I'm not ignoring anything.
Except the stuff you have to ignore in order to make the statement that you made, when I said that you were ignoring things I'd said.

Quote:
You were eventually satisfied with the response... great, you are more easily satisfied than other people... congratulations on that.
Well, if you're going to turn this into a contest of who can make the best veiled insult out of this, then I could put it to you that perhaps it's not that I'm more easily satisfied than other people, it's that I have better reading comprehension than other people. Given, that is, that we're all now apparently in the same place re Arista's beliefs on the subject and it took me 2 posts to get there and others 3 or more pages.

But that would be childish, as well as simplistic and just plain rude. So let's avoid that kind of hair-pulling, shall we?

In fact, I promised myself that I wouldn't get into a pointless "he said/she said" debate, and yet look at me still talking when there's science to do. So, from this point on, I can no longer be arsed. Feel free to read in to that whatever you wish.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 06:27 AM   #243
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
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.
Amusing. I have to wonder what, exactly, you were reading. When I defined the concept in question for Squeegee Beckenheim (Thank you, Squeegee Beckenheim, by the way), I specifically made note that the concept was vague to the point of uselessness, but it was still clearly defined and very much distinct from any other concepts that it could reasonably be mistaken for. When pressed about whether I know what is actually happening, I've freely admitted that I don't know. When the question of what is reasonable or useful to use in making decisions on how to interact with reality is being asked, I've stated that there's no good reason to accept that any of the energy concepts or, for that matter, other concepts in a similar situation, are the case. I do acknowledge that this is ambiguous to those who want an answer to a question that is pointless and somewhat meaningless to me. I "believe" where the logic takes me and I don't concern myself with going further when there's no good reason and would be no useful effect to doing so.

To deal with Daylightstar, a little,

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
A claim never can count as evidence for a position.


We do? No data or evidence required? What do you mean with "bases"?
Any interpretation of data is a claim. A base is what a chain of logic rests on. An example of one of the base assumptions that we all use is that more useful ways of understanding reality are preferable to less useful and not useful ways of understanding reality.

Now, that said, before we continue on with dealing with yet another post based on the evidence-free (and contradicted by the evidence), but somehow getting a free pass assumption of my support of woo, I'd like to point out something. So far, the attempts to accuse me of various wrongdoings have been incredibly weak and generally fallacious arguments, been blatant misinterpretations of what I've said, been false claims, utilized dishonest tactics, included attempts at mockery that honestly just made the mocker look worse, even if I wasn't interested in pointing that out, involved false accusations of word misuse from one who was engaging in word misuse, and so on. Overall, it looks more like a small group of people trying to score points with each other, rather than have an honest discussion. Even if I was a supporter of woo, such arguments and tactics would be very much reprehensible.

For that matter, if I actually did support woo, I would be coming out of this discussion reassured that the skeptics were dumb.

Now, that said, what's the next baseless accusation or attempt to take what I've said completely out of context in a vain attempt to feed one's confirmation bias? Or can we let this thread die?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 8th November 2012 at 06:34 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 08:00 AM   #244
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Fair enough. Are you identifying that as the point at which you changed your mind from thinking that Aridas believed in "energy", as it had been defined earlier?
It's not a case of changing my mind. It's more about collecting enough information on which to base an opinion. It's a gradual process.
The point I linked was the end of that process where it seemed to me like we were both on the same page.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Can you admit, at least, that you phrased it ambiguously? Given that "if you want to x" is a common turn of phrase which means exactly what I interpreted it to mean?
If there was any ambiguity. I apologise, though it was fixed later in the thread when I specifically said that I didn't think Aridas was supporting or claiming it [woo].

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Ah, no you can't. Okay.
You mean I'm not going to accept your misinterpretation of it?
Cool, knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
That some people didn't understand what was being said doesn't mean that what was being said was unclear.
It was obviously unclear to some people.
Why is this such a difficult concept to someone who hints at excellent comprehension skillz?

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
More assumptions. This thread would have gone a lot smoother if there were fewer assumptions and more thinking.

Repeating a straw man doesn't make it less of a straw man.
Repeating the bare assertion that it is a strawman doesn't make it less of a cop out.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Except the stuff you have to ignore in order to make the statement that you made, when I said that you were ignoring things I'd said.
You're talking bollocks again...
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim
You could technically say that I saw equivocation in the first of Aridas' posts that I replied to


Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Well, if you're going to turn this into a contest of who can make the best veiled insult out of this, then I could put it to you that perhaps it's not that I'm more easily satisfied than other people, it's that I have better reading comprehension than other people. Given, that is, that we're all now apparently in the same place re Arista's beliefs on the subject and it took me 2 posts to get there and others 3 or more pages.
Yes, even idiots can guess right with no information what-so-ever.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
But that would be childish, as well as simplistic and just plain rude. So let's avoid that kind of hair-pulling, shall we?
Yes lets.

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
In fact, I promised myself that I wouldn't get into a pointless "he said/she said" debate, and yet look at me still talking when there's science to do. So, from this point on, I can no longer be arsed. Feel free to read in to that whatever you wish.
I remember saying something remarkably similar myself a while ago.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 08:44 AM   #245
23_Tauri
Illuminator
 
23_Tauri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 4,947
__________________
Little Miss Witchcraft, she's not made of straw.
23_Tauri is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 09:06 AM   #246
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 523
Sorry, boys. All I'm still seeing is a case of OMG, OMG!!! ARIDAS USED A WOO DEFINITION OF ENERGY!!!!!

Last edited by cosmicaug; 8th November 2012 at 09:08 AM. Reason: Changed to all caps to optimize annoyance factor
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 09:25 AM   #247
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
A claim never can count as evidence for a position.


We do? No data or evidence required? What do you mean with "bases"?
...
Any interpretation of data is a claim. ...
Ah right, so it's not so much the claim itself, but the data on which that claim is based?
Would you accept a claim without proper data as something that is the case?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 09:41 AM   #248
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Sorry, boys. All I'm still seeing is a case of OMG, OMG!!! ARIDAS USED A WOO DEFINITION OF ENERGY!!!!!
Screaming removed by Daylightstar

It can easily be established that he did use such a definition, as he said so himself.
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Heh. I'm merely using common usage. A form of common usage that I already provided a link describing. Don't like it? I'd suggest taking it up with a much different audience.
Hilite by Daylightstar

Aridas calls it "common usage", which muddies the definition he linked to somewhat.
The link however contains the full blown woo 'definition' of "energy". It's used as a misleading placeholder for a claimed state and/or mechanism which can not be shown to exist and is not energy.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 10:22 AM   #249
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,351
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Sorry, boys. All I'm still seeing is a case of OMG, OMG!!! ARIDAS USED A WOO DEFINITION OF ENERGY!!!!!
This goes to your edit reason:

You need a better method of annoyance as I am not annoyed. And if that is your only goal here, perhaps a re-think is in order.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 10:44 AM   #250
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Screaming removed by Daylightstar

It can easily be established that he did use such a definition, as he said so himself.
Duh! He did use that definition because that is the appropriate definition within this context.

The OP talked about reiki. Aridas mentioned something along the lines of how it could have been any of several other energy healing modalities. Squeegee Beckenheim asked what the heck that word means, anyway. Aridas answered.

Aridas answer was correct. A, so called, energy healer would not be using a physicist definition of energyWP (Solaya, if that's really who the OP met, doesn't seem the physicist type and wouldn't know science if it bit her in the face). If the physics definition of energy had been the appropriate one in this context, the OP would not have been putting his hands by Solaya's hands. Rather, she have been sitting by a giant contraption and getting irradiated. This is not what happened. She had an encounter with a woo purveyor who operated according to woo concepts in her interaction with her.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 11:17 AM   #251
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
So we agree, Aridas used a woo 'definition' of the term "energy".
Aridas' answer was correct? Didn't you mean to say he provided a 'definition' in the so called correct context?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 12:37 PM   #252
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
..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.
Well, it took a lot of pages before he/she stated it in a manner that was,IMO, clear enough for me to come to the conclusion my allegations of woo peddling were unfounded...
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 01:01 PM   #253
Madalch
The Jester
 
Madalch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The wet coast.
Posts: 9,445
Originally Posted by Deranged View Post
I have no idea if this is legit but last week I took an online Chakra "test" by answering a bunch of questions.
Since there's no such flippin' thing as a "chakra", it's not legit.

When these people tell you that your chakras are blocked, and you need treatment from them to cure it, it's exactly the same as when your mechanic tells you that the carbaramacal gauge on your car is shot, and he'll have to install a new one. He's counting on you not knowing that there's no such thing as a carbaramacal gauge in order to trick you into paying for something you don't need.
__________________
As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius
It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker
Madalch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 01:36 PM   #254
cosmicaug
Muse
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
So we agree, Aridas used a woo 'definition' of the term "energy".
Aridas' answer was correct? Didn't you mean to say he provided a 'definition' in the so called correct context?
Yes, it is correct for the context. The context is not how rational, scientifically literate people use the term and this being the JREF doesn't even figure into it.

It's as correct as saying that the original poster might have been exposed to reiki. Reiki encompasses certain things. Some of those things are wrong. Nevertheless, those things are what reiki advocates claim is encompassed by reiki so if we are talking about how they present what they do we can use their language (and, in some instances, we can even use it as a verbal shortcut and this need not imply that we swallow the whole thing hook, line and sinker). Likewise the use of the term "energy" seems to mean about the same thing for all of the, so called, energy healing modalities and the fact that the definition is nonsensical is not really relevant to the fact that this is how they use it. It's just like I can talk about having had a tarot reading. Having had a tarot reading implies a lot of things which are, in fact, nonsense but if I am talking about what a, so called, reader thinks they are doing I will have to say that they consider that they gave me a tarot reading. I might even say I had a tarot reading without any other qualifications (and this does not necessarily mean that I feel it had any validity --though I suppose you might wonder why I had a tarot reading in the first place if I think it not to be valid, but I digress).

As an aside, I am, in fact, generally as annoyed as anyone else here at the common misuse of the term "energy". Unfortunately, it really is common usage. When people use the word they very commonly mean something more akin to what Aridas quoted than to what a physicist means when using the same word. It basically means something that one does not understand which gets one from point A (something like a non contact laying of hands, in this case) to point B (feeling something, in this case) which could very well be magic as far as one knows. It's a way of making it seem like one knows something by the use of a word which actually conveys no useful information. It is a filler word which does not sound like a filler word. This is helped by the fact that when a scientist uses the same word it actually does convey useful information leading the listener to conflate the two disparate uses of the word so as to reinforce the impression that something meaningful was said when the opposite was the case.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 03:05 PM   #255
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
Yes, it is correct for the context. The context is not how rational, scientifically literate people use the term and this being the JREF doesn't even figure into it.

It's as correct as ...
In the context he used it, yes, I understand that.


Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
... Unfortunately, it really is common usage. ...
Yes, in the woo context. In scientific (or practical applicabillity) context, not so much.
I understand 'energy' is a placeholder term in the woo context, chosen perhaps because of connotation with something almost intangible but very real.

Believers in woo 'energy' can use the place holder term all they like, but their 'energy' is still a misleading placeholder term for a claimed state and/or mechanism which can not be shown to exist and 'is' not energy.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 03:58 PM   #256
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 13,997
Might folks just use reiki "energy" in scare quotes? Seems like a pretty big tempest for this here teapot. How can you discuss something if you can't use the words it uses?
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 04:03 PM   #257
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Swingin' on a star
Posts: 7,121
This present discussion reminds me of one of my big bugbears with science fiction: when someone says "We're detecting an unknown energy." HOW?
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2012, 04:18 PM   #258
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Does anyone know when the word "energy" was introduced into the world of woo?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 05:18 AM   #259
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Ah right, so it's not so much the claim itself, but the data on which that claim is based?
Would you accept a claim without proper data as something that is the case?
For the former, both are completely necessary, which means that one is not actually more valuable than the other, functionally. Data is useless to us without a claim to what it means. That said, the logic that the claim is based on can be examined, evaluated, and compared to other claims. If I showed something that was, to keep things simple, indisputably a hunk of rock to a paleontologist, a maker of traditional Chinese medicine, a believer in some form of the Omphalos hypothesis, and a very drunk old man and was told, respectively, that it was a dinosaur bone, a dragon bone, something that God created when He created the world in situ, and a daisy, the logic that the claim rests on can certainly be evaluated and compared. Unsurprisingly, when the base assumption regarding usefulness that I noted before is applied, the paleontologist's claim is the most likely, by far.

For the latter, that very much depends on the actual position that requires supporting. For a claim that something is possible or impossible, logic alone could suffice. For a claim that deals in more directly useful matters, should I again refer to what I originally said? So long as it's not based on fallacious logic or reasoning at any level. Generally, trying to say that something is the case with any certainty requires something that can be considered to be objectively the case, which is what data actually is.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 10:14 AM   #260
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
For the former, both are completely necessary, which means that one is not actually more valuable than the other, functionally. Data is useless to us without a claim to what it means. That said, the logic that the claim is based on can be examined, evaluated, and compared to other claims. If I showed something that was, to keep things simple, indisputably a hunk of rock to a paleontologist, a maker of traditional Chinese medicine, a believer in some form of the Omphalos hypothesis, and a very drunk old man and was told, respectively, that it was a dinosaur bone, a dragon bone, something that God created when He created the world in situ, and a daisy, the logic that the claim rests on can certainly be evaluated and compared. Unsurprisingly, when the base assumption regarding usefulness that I noted before is applied, the paleontologist's claim is the most likely, by far.
...
The example you gave, deals with a mix of prior probability and data, not logic.
The paleontologist's and the very drunk old man's claim concern something of which existence can be and has been shown.
The claims by the others concern stuff which have not and can not be shown to exist, no prior probability, lack of plausibility and utter lack of .... data, and can be discarded as false.

Then what's left is to see if a match of the object you showed with known properties (data obtained previously) of a rock and a daisy can be made. Because these are extremely mundane objects with wildly varying properties, this matching can likely unambiguously be done visually.
If one is still in doubt, properties of the object can be measured (obtaining data) and compared with known properties (data obtained previously) of a similar rock and a daisy.
No assumptions for usefulness are needed.


Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
For the latter, that very much depends on the actual position that requires supporting. For a claim that something is possible or impossible, logic alone could suffice. For a claim that deals in more directly useful matters, should I again refer to what I originally said? So long as it's not based on fallacious logic or reasoning at any level. Generally, trying to say that something is the case with any certainty requires something that can be considered to be objectively the case, which is what data actually is.
Clearly (see your first example), but we're talking about this in the context of reiki. Reiki has no prior probability, therefor it's not meaningful to assign any clinical usefulness to it, without data, of which there is none.

If you'd want to show reiki to have any clinical usefulness, you'd need data, not logic.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:28 PM   #261
Drs_Res
NWO Acorn Hoarder
 
Drs_Res's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: N 34 3 8 / W 118 14 33
Posts: 1,987
Originally Posted by Madalch View Post
Since there's no such flippin' thing as a "chakra", it's not legit.

When these people tell you that your chakras are blocked, and you need treatment from them to cure it, it's exactly the same as when your mechanic tells you that the carbaramacal gauge on your car is shot, and he'll have to install a new one. He's counting on you not knowing that there's no such thing as a carbaramacal gauge in order to trick you into paying for something you don't need.

That's what they said about muffler bearings, but those who really know their stuff, know about muffler bearings and their importance.


__________________
Vote Bunk and vote often.
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
"Yes, well, I'm polymerized tree sap and you're an inorganic adhesive, so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you." - Sheldon - TBBT
Drs_Res is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:43 PM   #262
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The example you gave, deals with a mix of prior probability and data, not logic.
Indeed. I really didn't want to try to go through all the logic that led up to each and was used to support each, if primarily because that would take quite a while for the paleontologist, and, given the rest of this thread, the probability of more intentional misinterpretations and irrelevant tangents.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The paleontologist's and the very drunk old man's claim concern something of which existence can be and has been shown.
The maker of traditional medicine's claim is based on a flawed, but longstanding chain of logic that has simply been accepted by many. The logic of the supporter of the Omphalos hypothesis' claim is valid, but rests on questionable bases and is less useful. The very drunk old man's rests on questionable logic, let alone the bases for that logic.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The claims by the others concern stuff which have not and can not be shown to exist, no prior probability, lack of plausibility and utter lack of .... data, and can be discarded as false.
In the case of the Omphalos hypothesis, it really cannot be discarded as false, given that it is unfalsifiable. It can be considered to be completely not useful, though, and thus ignored for all practical purposes.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
If you'd want to show reiki to have any clinical usefulness, you'd need data, not logic.
You would require both. Again, data is useless if there is no interpretation of it and any interpretation that relies on flawed logic or bases is likely to be a bad one.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 9th November 2012 at 04:46 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 09:05 AM   #263
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Indeed. I really didn't want to try to go through all the logic that led up to each and was used to support each, if primarily because that would take quite a while for the paleontologist, and, given the rest of this thread, the probability of more intentional misinterpretations and irrelevant tangents. ...
It would not have made one iota of difference. For some of the claims you presented as an example, there is prior probability and ... data. For others none of these is present.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
The maker of traditional medicine's claim is based on a flawed, but longstanding chain of logic that has simply been accepted by many. The logic of the supporter of the Omphalos hypothesis' claim is valid, but rests on questionable bases and is less useful. The very drunk old man's rests on questionable logic, let alone the bases for that logic. ...
Whether a claim is old or accepted by many, it doesn't matter. I'm sure these are well known logical fallacies.
None of these two claims have prior probability or ... data. There however is prior probability and ... data for the claim of the very drunk old man.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
In the case of the Omphalos hypothesis, it really cannot be discarded as false, given that it is unfalsifiable. It can be considered to be completely not useful, though, and thus ignored for all practical purposes. ...
What you meant to say is that the claim from the Omphalos believer in your example can and should be discarded as false, due to lack of prior probability and lack of ... data.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
You would require both. Again, data is useless if there is no interpretation of it and any interpretation that relies on flawed logic or bases is likely to be a bad one.
Collectig data is followed by processing of that data, resulting in a conclusion/hypothesis/claim/opinion, what have you.
Data left on a shelve is indeed not very helpful. Incorrect processing of that data is obviously not helpful either.

To establish whether something is the case or not, you need data first.
In the case of reiki, their is a claim first, no prior probability and no data. No matter how much 'logic' you throw at it, it doesn't become data.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 10th November 2012 at 09:14 AM. Reason: "to" added after due
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 04:14 PM   #264
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
It would not have made one iota of difference. For some of the claims you presented as an example, there is prior probability and ... data. For others none of these is present.
Prior probability based on? For that matter, perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by prior probability? Simply that we "know" that something exists in the first place?

The example can just as easily be extended to two paleontologists arguing about whether it's a Stegosaurus bone or a Euoplocephalus bone, with one of them taking the place of the one with flawed logic who claims it to be a dragon bone, much as it wouldn't change the point I was making in any substantial way.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Whether a claim is old or accepted by many, it doesn't matter. I'm sure these are well known logical fallacies.
Yup!


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
What you meant to say is that the claim from the Omphalos believer in your example can and should be discarded as false, due to lack of prior probability and lack of ... data.
Absolutely not. Again, you are engaging in terrible reasoning if you think that something that is unfalsifiable can simply be dismissed as false. Ignored as not useful, yes. Dismissed as false, no.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
To establish whether something is the case or not, you need data first.
In the case of reiki, their is a claim first, no prior probability and no data. No matter how much 'logic' you throw at it, it doesn't become data.
You realize that you're attacking a straw man, if you actually are trying to direct this meaningfully at me?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 05:12 PM   #265
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
You realize that you're attacking a straw man, if you actually are trying to direct this meaningfully at me?
Before I go further, would you show me your claimed straw man please? Thank you.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 05:59 AM   #266
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Before I go further, would you show me your claimed straw man please? Thank you.
Given your history of assuming things not in evidence about me in this thread and attempting to attack me as if they were true? Heh. I did qualify it, of course, because you weren't necessarily attacking a straw man.

That said,

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
No matter how much 'logic' you throw at it, it doesn't become data.
in particular sounds like you're attacking a straw man, given your earlier posts and tone in the sentence. At no point did I argue that logic = data, even if I could likely make a decent argument for such a thing in certain cases.

Ahh, well, while I'm doing this, I'll poke more at the preceding sentence.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
In the case of reiki, their is a claim first, no prior probability and no data.
There is certainly a claim. First is questionable, though. I would suggest that it is more likely that it is more a result of uncritical thinking and poorly based assumptions, though. Before prior probability could be addressed, first, you would need to define it more clearly. As for data? There certainly is data. This site examines a decent chunk of it and the conclusions about the data are, frankly, completely unsurprising to me and in agreement with my stated position on the matter.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:20 AM   #267
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Given your history of assuming things not in evidence about me in this thread and attempting to attack me as if they were true? Heh. I did qualify it, of course, because you weren't necessarily attacking a straw man. ...
Please substantiate this claim unambiguously.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
in particular sounds like you're attacking a straw man, given your earlier posts and tone in the sentence. At no point did I argue that logic = data, even if I could likely make a decent argument for such a thing in certain cases. ...
You did not explicitly argue logic=data, however you appear to assign greater weight to logic than to data, as you keep emphesizing this logic when the need for data is mentioned.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
There is certainly a claim. First is questionable, though. I would suggest that it is more likely that it is more a result of uncritical thinking and poorly based assumptions, though. Before prior probability could be addressed, first, you would need to define it more clearly. As for data? There certainly is data. This site examines a decent chunk of it and the conclusions about the data are, frankly, completely unsurprising to me and in agreement with my stated position on the matter.
Prior probability is the probability that data will reflect a belief/claim, before that data is in. It's basically self explanatory.

The context of my use of the term "data", clearly implies data indicating clinical usefulness of reiki. Data which is ... lacking.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 10:54 AM   #268
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... For that matter, perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by prior probability? ...
See above.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
The example can just as easily be extended to two paleontologists arguing about whether it's a Stegosaurus bone or a Euoplocephalus bone, with one of them taking the place of the one with flawed logic who claims it to be a dragon bone, much as it wouldn't change the point I was making in any substantial way. ...
Your point was, to show that you'd determine what it was that you were showing, with logic and without data.
You appeared to put logic in the place of data.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
Absolutely not. Again, you are engaging in terrible reasoning if you think that something that is unfalsifiable can simply be dismissed as false. Ignored as not useful, yes. Dismissed as false, no. ...
In your example, yes, it can and should be discarded as false. Especially considering two options present each with prior probability and data.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
You realize that you're attacking a straw man, if you actually are trying to direct this meaningfully at me?
You do appear to give logic a (much) higher priority than data, which was clearly demonstrated in your example of the four claims.
However, I stated the need for data and that it is not becoming logic. That you appear not to agree with that, doesn't make it a straw man.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 11th November 2012 at 12:02 PM. Reason: above replaces below
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:36 PM   #269
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Please substantiate this claim unambiguously.
This post, for example. Admittedly, I may be overly sensitive on the matter in this thread, given the sheer number of times I've had to defend myself in this thread after my posts were misinterpreted, often in ways really not indicated by what I actually said.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
You did not explicitly argue logic=data, however you appear to assign greater weight to logic than to data, as you keep emphesizing this logic when the need for data is mentioned.
Largely because you seemingly keep trying to misrepresent it and because appropriate data is inextricably linked to useful logic when it comes to dealing with reality, and thus emphasizing data is pointless because it's already there. Either way, I've explicitly stated that logic and data are of equal importance in cases where data matters, not that one is more important, given that both are completely necessary for any useful function to occur. If something is not completely necessary, then more or less useful can apply.


Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Prior probability is the probability that data will reflect a belief/claim, before that data is in. It's basically self explanatory.
I'm somewhat curious about how you would determine the probabilities.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
The context of my use of the term "data", clearly implies data indicating clinical usefulness of reiki. Data which is ... lacking.
More technically, data that demonstrates that Reiki's effects are different than the placebo effect is lacking.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
In your example, yes, it can and should be discarded as false. Especially considering two options present each with prior probability and data.
If something is unfalsifiable, ruling it to be false will be based on bad reasoning. There's no way around that, no matter how much you might want there to be.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 05:53 AM   #270
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Now that I have a bit more time, I'll address another statement that I didn't have time to properly answer before.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Your point was, to show that you'd determine what it was that you were showing, with logic and without data.
You appeared to put logic in the place of data.
That was actually not my point at all, and frankly, I have to wonder how much you were relying on confirmation bias to think that I was saying that. Nor, to be direct now that you've stated what you mean by prior probability, did prior probability have any part to play in my example. In the example, I chose the four things that I did as examples of what I consider to be significantly different types of chains of logic (yes, relevant data and the interpretations thereof are very much included when I say chains of logic). The paleontologist and its claim was intended to serve as an example of logic and reasoning that was probably good from start to end. The medicine maker and its claim was an example of flawed logic and reasoning, and the flaws can, in fair part, be attributed to relevant data and the most useful interpretations of such. The Omphalos hypothesis was an example of a reasonable chain of logic based on unfalsifiable and not useful assumptions. The drunk old man was tossed on the end as humor and an example of very bad logic.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 06:53 AM   #271
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,351
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Now that I have a bit more time, I'll address another statement that I didn't have time to properly answer before.



That was actually not my point at all, and frankly, I have to wonder how much you were relying on confirmation bias to think that I was saying that. Nor, to be direct now that you've stated what you mean by prior probability, did prior probability have any part to play in my example. In the example, I chose the four things that I did as examples of what I consider to be significantly different types of chains of logic (yes, relevant data and the interpretations thereof are very much included when I say chains of logic). The paleontologist and its claim was intended to serve as an example of logic and reasoning that was probably good from start to end. The medicine maker and its claim was an example of flawed logic and reasoning, and the flaws can, in fair part, be attributed to relevant data and the most useful interpretations of such. The Omphalos hypothesis was an example of a reasonable chain of logic based on unfalsifiable and not useful assumptions. The drunk old man was tossed on the end as humor and an example of very bad logic.

Thread has drifted.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 09:47 AM   #272
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This post, for example. Admittedly, I may be overly sensitive on the matter in this thread, given the sheer number of times I've had to defend myself in this thread after my posts were misinterpreted, often in ways really not indicated by what I actually said. ...
I did ask you to substantiate your claim unambiguously, then you didn't.
Where in
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
This post, ...
did I assume things not in evidence about you and attacked you as if this claimed assumption were true?

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
Largely because you seemingly keep trying to misrepresent it and because appropriate data is inextricably linked to useful logic when it comes to dealing with reality, and thus emphasizing data is pointless because it's already there. Either way, I've explicitly stated that logic and data are of equal importance in cases where data matters, not that one is more important, given that both are completely necessary for any useful function to occur. If something is not completely necessary, then more or less useful can apply. ...
You can want to add logic all you want, but it is the data that does the real talking.
No data; no actually being the case. Data is the word.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
I'm somewhat curious about how you would determine the probabilities.. ..
Prior probability could be seen as data which does not directly support the claim but indirectly. In the case of reiki for instance, if data showed that Qi actually existed, reiki would have some measure of prior probability albeit a low one.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
More technically, data that demonstrates that Reiki's effects are different than the placebo effect is lacking. ...
No, data that demonstrates that reiki has a measurable beneficial physiological effect through- and directly related to a specific mode of action.
That data is ... lacking.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
...
If something is unfalsifiable, ruling it to be false will be based on bad reasoning. There's no way around that, no matter how much you might want there to be.
No, in that example it was (as stated) based on non prior probability and lack of data supporting the claim. There's no way around that.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 12th November 2012 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Link added to "as stated"
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 10:08 AM   #273
Daylightstar
Illuminator
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 4,071
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
Now that I have a bit more time, I'll address another statement that I didn't have time to properly answer before.



That was actually not my point at all, and frankly, I have to wonder how much you were relying on confirmation bias to think that I was saying that. Nor, to be direct now that you've stated what you mean by prior probability, did prior probability have any part to play in my example. In the example, I chose the four things that I did as examples of what I consider to be significantly different types of chains of logic ... . The paleontologist and its claim was intended to serve as an example of logic and reasoning that was probably good from start to end. The medicine maker and its claim was an example of flawed logic and reasoning, and the flaws can, in fair part, be attributed to relevant data and the most useful interpretations of such. The Omphalos hypothesis was an example of a reasonable chain of logic based on unfalsifiable and not useful assumptions. The drunk old man was tossed on the end as humor and an example of very bad logic.
It very much seemed so. You gave an example of such depending entirely on (unstated, mind you) logic and claimed to gave a conclusion based on this (unstated) logic.
As far as the balance of relevancy between your logic and data as displayed by you in your post containig the example with four claims, it was rather ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
... (yes, relevant data and the interpretations thereof are very much included when I say chains of logic). ...
Yes, say, not show.

Resume is right, this thread is drifting. Back to reiki.

Only data can show reiki to have a measurable beneficial physiological effect through- and directly related to a specific mode of action. If you'd want to show through your logic that it is possible that reiki could have a measurable beneficial physiological effect through- and directly related to a specific mode of action, be my guest.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 12th November 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason: added links after "by you in"
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 06:06 AM   #274
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Thread has drifted.
It certainly has, and, frankly, I take credit for defending myself and little more when it comes to my part in that drifting.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
I did ask you to substantiate your claim unambiguously, then you didn't.
True, I didn't, unambiguously, much as I can claim that the post more than speaks for itself, when taken in the context of this thread. Also, I consider it ridiculous to the point that it didn't actually require an answer. In particular, your implications with

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
does that do it for you?
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Or does your personal experience supplant reasoning and logic?
are for the former, simply offensive given that that was never viable, based on what I actually said, and yet was dealt with anyways, repeatedly. For the latter, it's blatant quote mining, with a counter to your implication in the very same sentence, reinforced in the rest of the sentences around it, and addressed elsewhere, as well. Given that neither of those were in any way indicated for by what I actually said, and they were obviously being used as an offensive maneuver, they count.

Between those two, that was a blatant example of something slightly different, but still very much dishonest. You asked whether there was a mode of operation for how Reiki works and specifically included mention of the placebo effect, which, indeed, can explain all the effects of Reiki. For the record, invoking the placebo effect does require a mode of operation to do so, unless you were using the term far differently than I interpreted it. That was followed by

Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
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.
which is, frankly, rather stupid, taken in context. The actual question you were asking here was "Why do you find the reliability of the placebo effect questionable?" Frankly, if you don't understand why I find the reliability of the placebo effect to be questionable, I'd suggest that you should really just stop posting for a little and learn more about the placebo effect, followed by considering the ethics surrounding it.

Incidentally, the first three responses in the post that is actually in question here are simply false, or somewhat stupid.

I do have a rather simple question, though, which may well invalidate the need to respond to much else that you've posted. Is a claim that does not have sufficient relevant data to support the claim ever not based on fallacious reasoning or logic?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 06:24 AM   #275
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,351
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It certainly has, and, frankly, I take credit for defending myself and little more when it comes to my part in that drifting.
<stuff snipped>
Easy peasy to start another thread.

In fact, it would be quite logical to do so.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 06:43 AM   #276
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Easy peasy to start another thread.

In fact, it would be quite logical to do so.
I really don't feel like it, though. I'd much prefer the discussion to simply end, given that it's been very little but attempts to use bad logic and often terrible or dishonest arguments to assign an unwarranted label or more than one labels to me for... most of it.

Of course, it's worth noting that the OP wasn't actually about Reiki, anyways, which rather made continuing discussion about Reiki off topic from the moment that it was understood that it wasn't. Frankly, the main reason why I was pointing out that the OP's claim didn't match the claims of Reiki is because, generally, debunking something that a person wasn't talking about in the first place isn't a very effective tactic. Had it actually been Reiki, then I would likely have helped debunk it, also likely more effectively than a number of the others, given that it seems like I actually know what I'm dealing with more exactly on the topic. Had the OP actually tried to defend Solaya's version of energy healing, I would have been happy to help examine the claims made there. Neither was the case.

If Daylightstar wants to try to beat up on Reiki, I'm not interested in defending it, as I've rather made quite clear, I think. It would be him who would need to make the thread, though.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 06:55 AM   #277
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,351
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
I really don't feel like it, though. I'd much prefer the discussion to simply end, given that it's been very little but attempts to use bad logic and often terrible or dishonest arguments to assign an unwarranted label or more than one labels to me for... most of it.

Of course, it's worth noting that the OP wasn't actually about Reiki, anyways, which rather made continuing discussion about Reiki off topic from the moment that it was understood that it wasn't.
The OP was confused about what she experienced, and what Reiki is. That was kind of understandable due to what this Solaya person is selling, and due to the claims about what Reiki is and isn't.

Both are woo. And I don't even like that term all that much but it fits.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 07:03 AM   #278
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,562
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
It certainly has, and, frankly, I take credit for defending myself and little more when it comes to my part in that drifting.



True, I didn't, unambiguously, much as I can claim that the post more than speaks for itself, when taken in the context of this thread. Also, I consider it ridiculous to the point that it didn't actually require an answer. In particular, your implications with




are for the former, simply offensive given that that was never viable, based on what I actually said, and yet was dealt with anyways, repeatedly. For the latter, it's blatant quote mining, with a counter to your implication in the very same sentence, reinforced in the rest of the sentences around it, and addressed elsewhere, as well. Given that neither of those were in any way indicated for by what I actually said, and they were obviously being used as an offensive maneuver, they count.

Between those two, that was a blatant example of something slightly different, but still very much dishonest. You asked whether there was a mode of operation for how Reiki works and specifically included mention of the placebo effect, which, indeed, can explain all the effects of Reiki. For the record, invoking the placebo effect does require a mode of operation to do so, unless you were using the term far differently than I interpreted it. That was followed by



which is, frankly, rather stupid, taken in context. The actual question you were asking here was "Why do you find the reliability of the placebo effect questionable?" Frankly, if you don't understand why I find the reliability of the placebo effect to be questionable, I'd suggest that you should really just stop posting for a little and learn more about the placebo effect, followed by considering the ethics surrounding it.

Incidentally, the first three responses in the post that is actually in question here are simply false, or somewhat stupid.

I do have a rather simple question, though, which may well invalidate the need to respond to much else that you've posted. Is a claim that does not have sufficient relevant data to support the claim ever not based on fallacious reasoning or logic?
Claims without data aren't necessarily true or false although the farther the claim is from reality the less reliability it has.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 07:04 AM   #279
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
The OP was confused about what she experienced, and what Reiki is. That was kind of understandable due to what this Solaya person is selling, and due to the claims about what Reiki is and isn't.
Indeed. This is the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation, though, and so it's really not a bad thing to try to help educate people, on, frankly, all manner of things. Understanding what is actually being claimed is essential, as far as I'm concerned, to being able to understand why it is or is not a reasonable claim.


Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Both are woo. And I don't even like that term all that much but it fits.
Indeed.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 07:06 AM   #280
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,243
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Claims without data aren't necessarily true or false although the farther the claim is from reality the less reliability it has.
For the record, that doesn't address the actual issue at hand. At all, really.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.