I think people should be careful doing Reiki

[lottieandmia22]

This post assumes a belief in spirituality so I'm not interested in debating that specifically. If you want to please start your own thread.

From what I can see, reiki is channeling occult energy through people's bodies and is therefore potentially risky. It seems to me that new age practitioners will repeatedly say they don't believe in malevolent entities but I think this is naive.

One of my friends told me that his dad was never the same after he became involved with reiki.

And also nearly everyone I've met who has done it was told by the reiki practitioner that they are 'special' have a 'gift' or could easily become a reiki master.

metacrisis- no one is suggesting "alternative truth".

I am a scientist- I am well aware of what constitutes scientific understanding.
But I am prepared to take my scientific hat off and give some things a try.

meta since you are back to the thread, could you please indicate whether you have a response to the post I made at 18.09?

Is your lack of response because you (in your own words) "...feel belittled because your beliefs are challenged, its because you realise those beliefs are not correct. And silly."?

What does "suggested" mean in scientific terms?

maybe we get off on truth and science and combating ignorant Wouldn't someone with intelligence and knowledge have a better way of getting to the truth than needing to "get off" in the first place, pity that.

You didn;t see that was in response to someone elses use of the term "get off" then?

Maybe work on those critical thinking skills, or at least reading?

I already answered it, speak, another one who needs to pay attention.

(I don't have beliefs. I have facts)

meta I already answered it, speak, another one who needs to pay attention.

Perhaps it's you who needs to pay attention, it wasn't me who asked the question.

Oh, I thought there had been some proper trials of hypnotism being effective for some conditions, but I can’t find any. I take back what I said about it.

sorry.

maybe we get off on truth and science and combating ignorant "alternative truths"?
It's quite the thing these days.

I think it is a real shame when debates such as this one are reduced to an 'intellectual pissing contest'. This is what gets in the way of any truth be it scientific truth or people's own thoughts on their lived experiences.

It is clear to me, that 'taking sides' may well have prompted the silence of posters such as Bertrand and meta when they appeared to continue to insist on the scientifically proven efficacy of hypnotism even when faced with cold hard evidence that the studies conducted were poor, nothing was conclusive and scientists disagree on it. All because, as someone who will not say something unproven can be disproven, arguing against meta questioned her in the probable oversight which caused her to insist scientists (and by implication herself as someone advocating all things scientific trumping everything else) claimed hypnotherapy was scientifically plausible and understood.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

“But I am prepared to take my scientific hat off and give some things a try.”

If something has been tested and proved not to work, why would you do this? Amber teething necklaces are a good example- the mechanism which they are supposed to work by is just impossible-and they are a choking hazard. Why would anyone use them?

X post!

I am corrected.

Bertand and meta have responded and have acknowledged the point I was making. Phew! Thank you.

blog.nationalgeographic.org/2013/06/24/the-science-of-hypnosis/

you can see hypnotism on a fMRI.

www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/what-is-the-science-behin_b_7505012.html
thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/science-behind-hypnosis-and-mind-reading
thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/there-s-actually-scientific-basis-behind-hypnotism
bigthink.com/philip-perry/science-reveals-that-hypnosis-is-real

Loads of science to support hypnotism. Try again!

Please correct me if I am wrong

you are, see above,

You didn;t see that was in response to someone elses use of the term "get off" then? It was me that said "get off" in the first place, it was you that confirmed it though.

Oh. The sorry was not to me then meta.

Inconclusive, even with studies you have cited, that is if you recognise the authority of the NHS and NICE though. Why do you think scientists disagree, on hypnotism for example, if the scientific truth is clearly irrefutable, meta?

Do you regard National Geographic and Huffington post as better scientific sources? Why?

I'm really just trying to explain that it's not channelling any "malevolent" forces.

Don’t know about any other lurkers, but I just wanted to pop in to say I’m finding this debate, and all the links, really interesting. So thank you.

And it’s reminding me why I find my Woo therapist friend (who is constantly giving me unsolicited health “advice” and patronisingly witters on about my “flawed belief system” when I try to discuss actual FACTS with her) so intensely infuriating.

These woo threads are profoundly depressing. How can anyone go through 11 years (at least) of education and come out knowing literally nothing about what science means, how it works & why we should trust it. It's embarrassing how often people say rubbish like, "Science doesn't know everything" as if that ends the debate.

Fucking hell...science doesn't understand the ultimate begiinings of the universe (yet) or how to align relativity with quantum mechanics (yet). It doesn't understand why measuring a quantum wavefunction causes it to collapse (yet) or how inanimate chemicals joined together and sprang into life (yet). Indeed, science does not know everything & it probably never will.

But, trust me, it knows that no human being can wave hands over another and channel a "mysterious energy" to cure sciatica.

And, awfully sorry, but if you give headroom to anything that a) has no evidence to support it and b) flies in the face of all known physical laws, then you are not "open minded". You are the very opposite of that...you are closed minded. Closing your mind to evidence = closed minded. Believing because you want to = closed minded.

If you want to see what "open minded" looks like read BertrandRussell & Headinhands posts. You'll notice they talk about evidence...nothing more, nothing less.

Speakout Yeah, I don't belive you're a scientist, Most scientists of my acquaintance tend to understand the scientific method. You...not so much.

I think there are unrecognised aspects to the world that we cannot yet measure. In the past nuclear energy and light spectra were unimaginable. X rays, telephones, the internet - all would have been beyond explanation.

I believe what I can see, hear, experience, read the science for.
I don't disbelieve other people's experiences. If other people have experienced stuff that defies explanation, and can't yet be replicated or measured, then I'd rather accept that there may be things we don't know than assume they are lying or deluded.

tabby I don't give a shiny shit what you believe.

If other people have experienced stuff that defies explanation, and can't yet be replicated or measured, then I'd rather accept that there may be things we don't know than assume they are lying or deluded

That way lies madness. People say "cancer has been cured by drinking maple syrup and pepper", they say "I eat no food, only air and light and mother earth keeps me alive with pure energy" they say "reiki heals broken bones and cures MS" , they say autism is caused by vaccines and cured by the right diet! (I have made up none of these things by the way!) People believe the earth is flat and crystals can ward off illness and angels talk to them and many more things

You believe them all? Because at one point no-one understood things that hadn't been invented yet?

Oh, don't you, Speakout? Well, I take it all back then.

weeping et al You can be sceptical without completely disbelieving. If someone's account of their experiences defies what we know through scientific study, personally, I'd rather hold my judgement until I've found out more.

This does not mean you necessarily actually believe them in terms of what they are saying being the objective truth. Depending on how well you trust them you might not particularly believe what they are saying is a truthful account of their understanding of their own experiences. However you can still hold judgement until you have investigated further. Even if they have not told an objective truth there still could be something valuable to learn from their perception of what they have experienced. Or you might actually be genuinely amazed, you never know!

Why be so boring to think you know it all? Don't you enjoy puzzles?