Reiki

[Fanatic]

Has anyone tried Reiki? Could you tell me a little bit about it?

Who is shouting?

It would be great to have debate - as in, "No, that is not correct, because xxx, and here is proof" but we don't have any of that from the faithful.

Instead, we get "I can't explain anything, and I can't say you are wrong when you say studies show it doesn't work, but I still think it does, so ner".

No sneering there, then.

So explain to me how you can say "this thong that you believe in has no basis in logic or reason, and extensive scientific tests have shown it not to work" in a respectful wqy?

I don't actually believe in anythong myself.

But the way you put it in your last post is respectful. Surely you can see that?

It wouldn't be respectful if you kept repeating it over and over, punctuated with and terms of abuse such as "the faithful" or worse, and caricatures of other people's posts.

Actually, go back to Entropygirl's post. That was couched in respectful terms, even though she added a bit of parody at the end. But it shows that she does know the difference between a courteous post and a rude one.

I agree that it's a shame that this thread has degenerated into a circular, pointless argument. Complementary therapies have been life-changing for many people, and much as it's important to flag up the danger of charlatans, it's equally important to share positive experiences. Preferably in a respectful thread, rather than a sneery one.

It has only degenerated if you think that nobody should ever be challenged about their beliefs, and never logical and scientific inaccuracies thy are passing on questioned.

Here, comfort, just to make you happy:

This thing that you believe in has no basis in logic or reason, and extensive scientific tests have shown it not to work.

HTH

Now, for this to be a debate, you need to reply with something along the lines of "No, actually, there is a basis in logic and reason: Here is how it works" and then "And here is my evidence".

Let's see what you've got.

Re entropy's posts: The point which you have unbelievably missed is not whether she knows the difference between polite and rude but what she was saying which you clearly didn't take on board as you are still going on about "But we should still think whatever we want".

Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to think whatever they want?

As Hans Litten (the lawyer who was endlessly tortured by the Nazis) said, "Die Gedanken sind frei." I'm not sure if he was quoting from Rilke in that instance.

Yes, believers can easily say well acedocatl evidence is it changed my life and/or here is a study of reiki which shows it works.

This is what debate is:-

"This thing that you believe in has no basis in logic or reason, and extensive scientific tests have shown it not to work.

Now, for this to be a debate, you need to reply with something along the lines of "No, actually, there is a basis in logic and reason: Here is how it works" and then "And here is my evidence"."

I think the gist of the thread as some people hae said this works, we have reminded people in particular that reiki consistently fails all tests so is much more likely than a lot of this kind of thing to be a load of rubbish but that the placebo effect may make some want to try it and to beware of cures that positively damage particularly if you're encouraged not also to see a doctor.

I think some people on this thread are saying very clearly: we know reiki has no basis in logic or reason - as defined by Cote. We know that extensive scientific tests - paid for by the pharmaceutical industry - have shown it not to work. We would still like to keep and open mind, and speculate together about whether there might nonetheless be something in it. And that something might well be discovered by science as science progresses. Especially if the science concerned is not paid for by vested interests.

Why be so rude to people who just want to talk about ideas?

The issue of research funding and how it skews results has consistently been raised on this thread.

I imagine the Nazis produced plenty of scientific evidence that they were the Master Race.

Why is it rude to say something is proven not to work? I think people have been pretty understanding on the thread.
(I suspect invoking references to the nazis is not such a good plan. Most people in the UK recognise that some stuff is charlatan rubbish and some is medically proven and some is in the middle. I think thankfully most British people respect science and we are lucky to have scientists who work very hard for us)

But scientific evidence produced by the Nazis is now discredited.

That's an important point.

No-one now insists that we respect the findings of Nazi science.

What on earth are you talking about, comfort. Nazis? Seriously?

This is not about being "allowed" to think what you want.

It is about insisting on believing in nonsense although you have repeatedly been shown that it doesn't work. While you don't even have a logical basis on how it should work.

"Earth is round, here is proof"
"I want to believe it is flat. Are you saying I'm not allowed? YOU NAZI!"

Get a grip, woman.

I'm simply saying people should be allowed to talk about things on MN without being bullied off the thread.

My point about Nazi science is an important one; I'm sorry you're not engaging with it.

Nazi "science" had little relation to today's scientific method.

Did they do any randomised controlled trials that were discredited?

Come out and say your "point" then.

That Nazis were wrong when they injected dye into Jews' eyes so all science before or since is dubious?

This is my point, which I was all ready to post when MN went offline for ages:

Maybe I need to spell out the political science more clearly.

To some extent at least, but very often to a large extent, in scientific research, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Under the Nazi regime, plenty of scientific evidence was produced to back up the political ideology.

You say, once again very rudely, "come out and say your "point" then". But I had already said my point, namely: scientific evidence produced by the Nazis is now discredited.

Why would you ignore that point?

Anyway, I've spelt it out more clearly now, I hope.

So many on here can give anecdotal evidence to how Reiki has worked for them. Reiki 'fails' scientific testing, paid for by pharmaceuticals. Double blind randomised control trials are designed to test pharmaceuticals, not complimentary therapies. To my mind, it is the testing that is not suitable.

I am not here to change anyones mind, we are all certain of our views, that is for sure. There is no scientific testing for intuition, and I work on that principle myself. I like to make my own judgement, based on my own intuition and experiences. We are all individual, what works for one will not work for another. Even pharmaceuticals work that way, how many say antidepressants are there? Or oral contraceptive pill? If we were all the same, only one type of each would be needed.

"So many on here can give anecdotal evidence to how Reiki has worked for them. Reiki 'fails' scientific testing, paid for by pharmaceuticals. Double blind randomised control trials are designed to test pharmaceuticals, not complimentary therapies. To my mind, it is the testing that is not suitable."

Could you explain why?

The Nazis did do randomised controlled trials. They took science very seriously.

There's an interesting paper about it from Warwick Uni, here if you'd care to take the time to read it, Cote.

They took science very seriously because they used it to back up their political ideology, and said that because it was scientifically proven, no-one could disagree with their political ideology, which was based on the "science" of racial superiority.

Any comment on Nazi science, seeker?