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.

because your views are so unscientific. Anti-scientific even.

cant, no they are not. Bertrand actually describe up an aspect of my perspective as summing 'up the scientific method, commenting upon this that I said on 16/1,

I can accept the validity of scientific research whilst still acknowledging scientists are not perfect and might have missed an important prior which affects results

I think the problem is that some posters do not seem to be acknowledging the (or the possibility for) fine nuance in people's perspectives. I can have a perspective that acknowledges science and empiricism whilst equally acknowledging the huge impact people's lived experiences, the way they process and understand them, have on people's lives. It can be one of the reasons that there are people that are an exception to statistics, that are rarely 100% anyway. People's emotional and mental state can have a huge effect in their health - this is not a shock to health professionals. So if people believe a complimentary treatment helps them, in some way, it very probably does.

Belief in false things can be a source of unhappiness and can kill you.

So how are you defining false?

I obviously didn't make myself clear-and I think I misunderstood you. The scientific process has checks and balances built into it to to ensure that nothing is missed. That's what peer review is for. Obviously a hypothesis can be revisited when and if new evidence emerges. This does not mean that I think it allows for, say, homeopathy to work for some people. Obviously it does give relief and comfort to some individuals because the placebo effect is strong. Also most people who use homeopathy are heavily emotionally and sometimes financially invested it it- discovering that it does not work would be very difficult for them indeed.
It's also important to remember that those of us who are suspicious of Big Pharma should be equally suspicious of Big AltMed. It is also a multi billion pound business without many of the regulations that the manufacturers of stuff with active ingredients have to abide by.

Obviously a hypothesis can be revisited when and if new evidence emerges. This does not mean that I think it allows for, say, homeopathy to work for some people.

Bertrand, there can be quite a gap between an initial hypothesis between new evidence emerging whereby it is revisited, though. Because, with the empirical method, the evidence required for conclusions insists large data sets this is going to take time to interpret.

Which means there is some amount of uncertainty and where this exists people will form their own ideas and assumptions.

Personally, I don't particularly hold with homeopathy. I can understand some of the thought behind it, though. However it actually makes me smile because the thought processing behind it renders tap water as the ultimate panacea of health! how many 'memories' will that have?

Also most people who use homeopathy are heavily emotionally and sometimes financially invested it it- discovering that it does not work would be very difficult for them indeed.

I agree. But there is the same risk regarding being heavily invested in any treatment. There are few treatments that are 100%. Lots have serious side effects too. Don't get me wrong I would never recommend homeopathic treatments. I wouldn't want the NHS to fund them either because, as I said earlier, it is not their business to use public money to fund unproven treatments. However interest in it, the professed mechanisms by which it is said to work, does not outrage me. Unscrupulous pedlars, who do not emphasise something's unproven nature, do annoy me though.

It's also important to remember that those of us who are suspicious of Big Pharma should be equally suspicious of Big AltMed. It is also a multi billion pound business without many of the regulations that the manufacturers of stuff with active ingredients have to abide by.

So I agree here.

Nuance.

For example, I was annoyed when my D.C. was recommended a totally unproven exercise program, which had no research behind it (openly admitted) or even specific scientific basis as part of catering to additional educational needs. It was very loosely based on some Yoga techniques. All the children with varying different additional needs at the school participated. Which meant missing lessons. They were expected to 'practise' at home. As a parent you are in an awkward position when you are invited to watch the group and participate in a discussion afterwards with all the children present. My child strained themselves practicing at home because they thought they 'should'. Thankfully this was only a phase of the school's and passed.

Ah, but what if some children benefitted from it?

I agree with you by the way- all that brain gym and write dance bollocks.......

Ah, but what if some children benefitted from it?

The reason I did not criticise with them sitting their pleased with their 'display'. I was not about to knock the confidence of children that have enough struggles to overcome, as it is. Confidence, I far as I'm concerned, is important.

But that’s exactly my point. Some children may have gained confidence from it- but the tax payer will have been paying out for some unscientific bullshit and parents will have been fed a line that might have given them false hope, or made them feel as if they had failed because they hadn’t made it work for their child. Teachers will have wasted time and energy. It’s practically never a zero sum game.

Yes, I was agreeing with you, Bertrand.

My own line is I wouldn't actively advise anyone to undergo unproven treatment. I don't think people in a position of authority should either. I don't think government funding should be used to pay for unproven treatments.

However if people choose to undertake them themselves and fund them I don't necessarily see it as bad. It is their choice. I think it is perfectly fine also to talk about their opinions and experiences. The treatments might have helped them. Because people do not always fit the statistics.

Personally, I don't particularly hold with homeopathy. I can understand some of the thought behind it, though

Which bit? Of all of the woo nonsense people believe in, homeopathy is one of the worst. It doesn't even pretend to make any sense. To think there is anything at all to it you have to ignore all known laws of physics and logic.
It is the ultimate stupidity. It is so illogical it makes me angry when seemingly intelligent people say it works.

But I think within education empirical research gets complicated in a field with so many priors and environmental factors affecting the results.

I mean how could there ever be proof that an inexact form of exercise improves attainment for children with different and varied additional needs, of varying complexity?

cant, very very loosely, the idea of treating like with like is similar to the way vaccinations work. Also in allergy desensitisation very small quantities of the allergen are used. Agitation again I could see might affect things. And the memory thing links partially to quantum physics. But it is doesn't all completely add up, as far as I can see.

You've missed a rather important point of the theory. Homeopathy says that the less you put in, the stronger the effect, to the extent that almost all homeopathic remedies contain NONE of the supposed active ingredient. It says the memory of the substance in the water is enough to cure your ailments.
Anyone who can't see the issue there shouldn't be making any decisions at all.

Also, that isn't how vaccines work, or allergy desensitiation either.

I've not missed anything. I see similarities, that is all. Hence my use of 'loosely', 'partially', 'doesn't completely add up'.

All of which are wrong. It doesn't "not completely add up" it has no merit of any kind and does not in anyway even begin to add up.

cant finding connections is not a bad thing. Like the practise of Alchemy marked the origins of the study of chemistry. Alchemy was superstitious and had a belief system all of its own but its emphasis on transformation fuelled an interest which evolved into more scientific study,

finding connections that do not exist is a bad thing. Which bit of "completely impossible to work" are you struggling with exactly?

You do understand that if water has the memory of arnica, it also has the memory of cholera, typhus and the plague?

cant, it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you if you do not read my posts properly. I said this at 9.10am today.

Personally, I don't particularly hold with homeopathy. I can understand some of the thought behind it, though. However it actually makes me smile because the thought processing behind it renders tap water as the ultimate panacea of health!  how many 'memories' will that have?

I’m baffled now. How can you not believe in homeopathy and sort of believe in it at the same time.? The vaccination parallel doesn’t work because the active ingredient in a vaccine is the disease, so it triggers the immune response. The “active” ingredient in homeopathy is something that has no connection, except in the mind of the homeopath, .with what it is treating.

I know what you said. Clearly, since I am explaining to you why it was wrong. You said you can understand some of the thought behind it, and I told you how none of it has any thought behind it that makes any sense.
Which bit of that confused you?

Bert,

I’m baffled now. How can you not believe in homeopathy and sort of believe in it at the same time.?

Just as anyone can not wholeheartedly agree with something.

I can see where the understanding came from, especially historically but then not agree with the expansion of the ideas and assumptions made. Just like I can understand what people were trying to do with Alchemy but not believe in it myself.

If my child, for example, got the answer to a maths problem wrong, I would look at their working out. If it started off being correct, I would acknowledge that then highlight at what point they 'took the wrong path'.

Why is the nuance in my perspective so problematic for people to understand?

Like centuries ago when people thought diseases were passed on through bad odours. Whilst bad odours can indicate the presence of harmful bacteria this idea is not (strictly) true since diseases are most often passed on through contaminated waste, bodily fluids and close contact with those affluent cited.

Afflicted. Typo.

“Whilst bad odours can indicate the presence of harmful bacteria this idea is not (strictly) true“

No. It’s not true at all. Bad odors do not cause disease. It is possible to understand why people thought like that-but they were absolutely, completely wrong.