Freedomain Radio

Message: I do agree with the idea of believing in yourself and not parroting.  Thing I caught that I had a problem with is your ideas of reality.  Straight to the point: how can a person be illogical when the logic in which it is based upon is constantly changing with such sciences as quantum physics and real feelings and evidence from personal experience?  What I mean by feelings is in the field of energy, healing, and awareness that many people shut themselves off from.  I for one have literally healed people of headaches, ears that ring, stuffy noses, and also hurt, confused and manipulated people through the use of energy.  As well as understood people by being able to see what exactly they are feeling, where they are coming from, and the basic rythm of thier ideas or thoughts.  It is what I understand and able to convey to people thier truths under thier logic and with thier outlook that makes me both known as a perceptive person. 

Like one person may percieve the logic of opposites that quite simply says in medical terms that if you have an illness you need to provide an opposite symptom until the problem is fixed, but, like in homeopathy, there is also the logic of symillarities that takes the stance of taking something from the venom of a snake to cure a snake bite.  That is the clearest and most solid evidence I have on the matter of different logics. 

My point is one of perception, lack of evidence to support evidence, and constants in science that are hard to change.  The constant being the observer and our lack of knowledge about our place in the world turns every single logic based in \"truth\" to dust.  For truth is a perception, it is a combination of every awareness a person has and thier choice on the matter. 

And my solution to the ideas set forth are not what is true and right, but what is useful.  If in fact it is useful for a person to believe in rocks falling upward then that\'s thier bussiness.  If it is useful for me to email you, I will. What is useful is what matters, for truth does simply not exist or if it does it is not concrete in any way shape or form and changes constantly.

my response:

Well [name], if you have this amazing ability to heal people, you should submit yourself to scientific testing in order to verify your powers, just to be sure you are not imagining things or manipulating people.

Plus, if you have the ability to heal, you should go and visit hospitals and help people regrow their severed limbs - I'm sure that they would be enormously appreciative!

Do let me know how it goes, I think it would be wonderful if it were true! :)

Best wishes,

Stef

That would be quite amazing.  I can't wait to hear about him in all the papers.

Placebo? We are probably all 'healers' to some extent, because we all posses the ability to think positively and to help others do the same, whether it be through subterfuge or not. There is no clear or absolute distinction between mind and body, yet we know the power of the mind to heal the body or to overcome illness, pain or anguish. While s/he may not be able to heal a broken leg or fractured skull, I don't think we should be too harsh if s/he is actually helping people to overcome "headaches, ears that ring, stuffy noses..." etc. I remember feeling very sick once for days and going to the hospital, yet suddenly feeling much better almost upon arrival, or simply by being in the company of the doctor, in his very official looking white attire. Placebo surely doesn't work as well when you know for sure it's only a placebo at work?! I think that's often the secret to these 'spiritual gurus', witch-doctors and shamans. We test drugs against placebo today. Most so-called 'anti-depressants' for example, are no more effective in independent clinical trials than placebo, many actually show as worse after prolonged usage due to various side-effects etc. Our mind is a remarkable tool. For a broken leg however, I'll still be hoping for a good splint, cast and some strong painkillers!

Ha, pseudoscience relies on subjective belief in order to be taken as valid. Truer words have never been written.

I wonder what kind of energy this person uses to heal people? Kinetic energy would only exacerbate a headache. Thermal energy might do something indirectly to the nerves, allowing the blood vessels to contract or expand or do whatever their thing is. Chemical energy sounds best to me. Three cheers for Acetaminophen! It might also be a good idea to use potential energy by resting one's head on a pillow, and block out some electromagnetic energy by turning off the lights.

Edit: here's a fun talk by James Randi about Homeopathy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U

i wish i knew this guy, i have quite the headache myself and he sounds like a champion.

haha do you really wonder? The scientific method was already disarmed earlier in his email. It must have had a purpose when that was locked in the freezer.

Stef, I would see this as an opportunity to educate instead of brush off.  The problem in this world isn't the rational people, it's the irrational ones.  It's up to you how you want to handle these people of course, but if you're only getting through to rational people, well, what does that really change?  It's kind of like marketing a weight-loss book to professional athletes and laughing away all those silly fat people who think eating twinkies is a good thing.  I know you're busy, we're all busy, but why not try to find some value in what he says, meet him at that point, and then offer him the opportunity to post his thoughts here or direct him to some resources?

And I find it interesting that everyone who's responded so far (aside from fingolfin) would rather get a cheap laugh instead of actually trying to find value in anything he said or a better way to handle his message.  Was his point about non-intuitive solutions completely invalid?  Is it bad to seek out useful things?  Do you know everything about healing?  The guy never claimed he could heal broken arms (although he might believe that).  He was talking about minor ailments, and who's to say there aren't undiscovered methods of treating them?

I help take care my Grandmother a couple of days a week and she occasionally feels light-headed, nauseous, etc.  I've had a lot of success relieving these types of things (although it's far from 100% "cure" rate), but it's not through some special energy channels or the like.  It's based on a scientific understanding of how the brain and pain operate, and I've learned some techniques that essentially help distract her mind from these pains and move her to a different place mentally.  Maybe this guy's unconsciously doing something similar.  Look at all we know about placebo.  There have been countless scientific studies where the placebo group "outperforms" the group that receives nothing.  Can you tell me what's going on scientifically?

In short, be skeptical, but have an open mind and test scientifically.  And use these times as opportunities to educate the mystics.

Well, I can't comment on his ability to relieve headaches, but he sure gave me one.

Water:

I know you're busy, we're all busy, but why not try to find some value in what he says, meet him at that point, and then offer him the opportunity to post his thoughts here or direct him to some resources?

I'm sure, if you believe you can find value in what this person is saying, that Stef would be happy to put you two in touch. From that email I get that the writer is completely uninterested in reason and evidence... but perhaps that is anti-scientific bias on my part.

Stef, I would see this as an opportunity to educate instead of brush off.  The problem in this world isn't the rational people, it's the irrational ones.

What tools or methodology should one use to reach a person who values irrationality? Further, what criteria or methodolgy will you employ when you respond to my first question?

Dave

I would agree with him that just because our current knowledge of science hasn't proven it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I'm kind of confused by his denial of truth. If you cannot know what is true, how can you possibly know what is useful? You would have to know that it is true that it is useful for it to be of any use, wouldn't you? His claims of healing people hinge on the truth of the fact that they were acutally healed.

I don't know if I can deny the claims of healing made by this guy, though. I knew someone who was a medical nurse but also used some sort of spiritual healing method to try and cure a cat of having seizures (I saw it have a seizure). The cat hasn't had seizures since then. I don't know if it really worked or was just a fluke. But due to this lack of knowledge, I can't dismiss these methods outright.

Travis Touchdown:

I would agree with him that just because our current knowledge of science hasn't proven it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The category of things that "our current knowledge of science hasn't proven" is infinite (it includes healing energy fields, gods, and unicorns).  It's complement is tiny in comparison: detectable reality (most of it).  Granted, there is a (relatively) miniscule sliver of things that science hasn't "proven" yet that do, in fact, exist.  However, if one's goal is to use reality to the greatest furtherance of one's ends, one needs to be highly supremely skeptical of claims of detectible phenomenon on which that the scientific method cannot be brought to bear.

Travis Touchdown:

I don't know if I can deny the claims of healing made by this guy, though. I knew someone who was a medical nurse but also used some sort of spiritual healing method to try and cure a cat of having seizures (I saw it have a seizure). The cat hasn't had seizures since then. I don't know if it really worked or was just a fluke. But due to this lack of knowledge, I can't dismiss these methods outright.

You don't have to dismiss the methods outright.  There are numerous rigorous studies that disprove the claims of spiritual healing. 

I encounter the "you never know what will be proven true in the future" idea alot--I understand it's appeal (sort of optimistic nihilism?).  I think it's important, again, if pursuit of Truth is the goal, to examine the argument, understand its glaring flaw, and then seek to understand why it's so seductive to otherwise rational minds.  I'm still in this process myself.

Charlotte:

I'm sure, if you believe you can find value in what this person is saying, that Stef would be happy to put you two in touch. From that email I get that the writer is completely uninterested in reason and evidence... but perhaps that is anti-scientific bias on my part.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough.  Why do you think Stef provides books, podcasts, etc.?  It would seem to me that the goal is to "cure" irrationality in the hopes of bringing down things like the state, religion, and pseudo-science.  If this is your goal then does it help your cause to scoff at and turn away an "irrational" person?  Aren't we all a little irrational on some level?  It's like a doctor who only sees healthy people.  I'm not suggesting Stef should invest any significant amount of time with this person, but I think it's counter to his long-terms interests to not even attempt to turn him on to some resources that already exist.

When I speak about the value of his message, I'm talking about using that as a common ground to "hook" him in (in an honest way) and lead him from that.  It's kind of like a Judo throw where you use someone's own momentum against them.  Agree with what he's saying that may have some merit and show him how certain resources here may help him even more to "find what's useful".

 No part of what Stef said seemed to be truly dismissive in nature. Being skeptics ourselves we all get the underlying tone implied by the response but I would not clasify it as aggressive. This guy is obviously a true believer and as such probably has no interest in changing his mind. He should go take the Randi challenge and be done with it.

Don't get me wrong, Jad. I don't think that many of the claims of spiritual healers are valid. I certainly don't believe in spirits or Mother Goddess or any of that stuff. However, like you say, there is detectable phenomenon here. If the spiritual healer does something, and the ailment stops, I think there is some evidence that the spiritual healer did something right. Far from conclusive evidence, but something worth checking out. So, yeah, I'd agree with Stefan concerning that. Although I'm not sure the guy would follow the advise unless he was aware that his beliefs about truth were contradictory, though.

Water:

When I speak about the value of his message, I'm talking about using that as a common ground to "hook" him in (in an honest way) and lead him from that.  It's kind of like a Judo throw where you use someone's own momentum against them.

I'd say that the main flaw with the "you never know what will be proven true in the future" idea is that there are things which will never be proven true in the future: like "2 + 2 = 5" and "what is true is also false." Of course, science is more concerned with inductive rather than deductive reasoning. I just want to point out that this isn't a belief that I hold.