The Enemies of Reason, Channel 4, Monday 8pm

[SeanMacGabhann]

Am I being mean if I ask what that assumption is based on? Looking at the site you suggested I read:

"When you read about Reiki in books or on the Internet you will find several different theories about where Reiki came from: the stars, Lemuria, Atlantis, Egypt, India, Tibet etc. What we do know for a fact is that Reiki was "rediscovered" in Japan by Dr Mikao Usui during the beginning of the 20th century."

The stars? Atlantis?

And then this from the official Scientology website:

"In Scientology no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by personally applying its principles and observing or experiencing results."

I know it seems as if we are all having a go, and I guess that's even true, but it is obviously something you feel heartfelt about so I'm just keen to understand the differences? Can you least see that us skeptics might have a reason for being confused ?

[MadWorld74]

I suggest that you receive some Reiki, and then I suggest that you pop down to your local friendly scientology church, attending a 'meeting' and see the difference for yourself. Skeptics can only discover the truth by experience. Experience them both and then come back on this forum and tell us what you observed.

Reiki comes form the energy in the atmosphere that we all are linked to. Everything has an energy. Reiki uses that energy.

Scientology comes from aliens....

[Jeremy]

fractionater Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a scientific man I'm surprised that Dwarkin

> didn't draw parallels with the Quantum Physics

> princinpal whereby observing an experiment can

> affect its outcome

As I understand it, the effects of quantum mechanics are only really relevant on an atomic scale. It certainly doesn't scale to things like cats (as in Schrodinger's famous metahpor), or a person sitting in a room observing a patient.

> since we have no Scientific understanding of the

> actual Scientific processes involved during some

> of these alternative methods then how can we

> accurately measure them and draw conclusions with

> our current limited understanding?

I would have thought it is fairly easy to test whether a remedy actually works... ie a double-blind trial. Why should certain practises be exepmt from this?

> If more scientific research were carried out in

> these areas then we'd all be better informed.

That would be an excellent idea, do you think many practitioners would volunteer for it?

> Trying to debunk something based on current

> understanding is wrong....just like the world used

> to be flat!

Yes, everybody believed that the earth was flat, until it was proved otherwise... which I think is fair enough. Similarly many of us will remain unconvinced by certain new-age healing practises, voodoo, magic, god, etc until there is some sort of proof.

[Mark]

> Skeptics can only discover the truth by experience

not really, you can make decisions based on evidence and scientific reasoning. The sun's a long way away, never been there and measured it myself but I know that because of the facts I have learnt in my life. And no I won't continue questioning those facts because I want the world and mankind to progress and it's hard to do so when progress is held back by magic.

[MadWorld74]

I can hear the religious fanatics howling at that last post... If God were new-age he may be a decent chap.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Even with my limited knowledge I don't expect the practice of Reiki and Scientology to be REMOTELY similar (I love putting those caps in - CitizenEd gets upset if I don't). I know that you have no wish to indoctrinate anyone and you have no plans to open an office on Tottenham Court Rd

The point I'm trying to make is that the defence of both sounds very similar. It sounds as if you are as sceptical about Scientology as I am - however it's the foundations, philosophy, whatver you call it which underpins them appears to be.... trying to choose a non-prejudicial word... ach I'll say it - flaky

The whole "I have seen results and helped many people" thing I can get - but the belief system behind it.. hmmm. Why would I need to believe that some vague spirit from Atlantis or possibly the stars, channeled by 3 people in the 20th century into a "cohesive" philosophy before I can be healed? That's the bit I don't get

[MadWorld74]

Mark what do you mean that the progress of the world is being held back by 'magic'?

[mockney piers]

I've noticed that there does seem to be a misapprehension on here that science is some sort of exclusive, gnostic, patriarchal conspiracy that feels threatened by the wonder of spirituality and mysticism.

I can't quite square the circle there.

The whole point of science is that it is always open to attempts to debunk or disprove. Theories are hypothesised, tested and hopefully proved or disproved, or at least held to be a satisfactory work in progress until subsequent research deems otherwise.

Indeed in attempting to disprove theories scientists often end up proving them despite themselves, such as millikan's attempt to disprove Einstein's particulate-wave theory of light. After a few years of research he not only proved it correct, but calculated the value of Planck's constant...good work fella.

Through science we've eradicated many diseases, made huge medical advances, found treatments or cures for many cancers. We take it for granted that we can be anywhere in the world within a day, we can talk to each other anywhere on earth, we can watch important events unfold before our eyes as they happen.

I can't say as witchs' brews or acupuncture have done much about smallpox or malaria.

Scientists don't deplore the teaching of religion in schools, but of the reverse this cannot be said. Religion and superstition see science as a threat, not the other way round. Well, in the states anyway, C of E and even the Catholics actually recognise evolution as the best theory, they just like to see the hand of god in it, as it is, presumably, in everything.

Science doesn't have to deny things that aren't understood, but it retains the right to test them, cats in boxes or uncertainty principles aside (well, not aside really, how nice that quantum physicists introduce these elements of doubt rather than zealot preachers).

If scientific thought and methodology is open to question, then why should other ways of thinking not be so.

[mockney piers]

"Reiki comes form the energy in the atmosphere that we all are linked to."

I hope you're not going to betray my childhood by changing your mind and claiming they come from midi-chlorians

[Mark]

hang on, I just counter-whatevered your statement "Skeptics can only discover the truth by experience" by saying "The sun's a long way away ... I know that because of the facts...." which means you're wrong. Do you agree? If so then I shall tell you what I mean by that bit about magic, if not tell me why I'm wrong and I'll probably tell you what I mean by that bit about magic.

[edited once]

[MadWorld74]

In my mind, MY mind, skeptics can only discover the truth through experience. That is the way I personally see it. Therefore Mark, it is not on for you to tell me I 'am wrong' and try to get me to make some admission of such on this forum.

The part about magic and that it holds back mankind and progress, is your point of view. Hypnotherpay however can be seen as a form a magic, can't it?

When people start throwing in quotes from theoriests it gets a little too much.

I'm loosing the will to live with this now.

[Mark]

I feel this is a modern online version of the Magic Roundabout

now magic mushrooms, they have progressed mankind (as backed up in the teachings of the great 20th Century Philosopher William Hicks)

[MadWorld74]

Mark, and you are the online modern version of the Magic Man.

[capt_birdseye]

I'm sure the likes of Capt_Birdseye (closet banker) will have something to say about this, which I'm not going to allow me to upset or hot under the collar about.

I was criticising your debating "skills" not your beliefs or indeed your job. I have by no means a closed mind to some of these alternative therapies but would like to know more about them so that I can make a sound judgement on them. You seem to get hot under the collar quite a lot and come across as being particularly thin-skinned as well as hypocritical in the way you don't like any criticisms of your work but are quite happy to belittle other professions.

[MadWorld74]

I appologise about my debating skills. I never went to any debating clubs at college. Alot of people on here go round in circles and try to amaze with their use of the English language, which quite frankly at the end of the day, means bugger all. Hot under the collar? I've already been down this route with another forumite (you know I know who you are!)

I have said some things on here that have been deliberatly contentious to see what reactions I would get. That's allowed isn't it?

[capt_birdseye]

Shall we draw a line under the name-calling and move on?

Big hug.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I want to continue this discussion because it genuinely interests me - but I'm loathe to do it at the moment because it seems like ten of us stacked up against one person. (even if that person admits saying some contentious things and then threatens to leave when people rise to the bait. every time ;-) )

So... shall we, for the moment, remove Reiki from the debate and return to the programme in question. The first episode showed lot's of average-Joe and Josepehines with their beliefs being shot down by a slightly supercilious Prof. The second one appears to be looking at some bigger issues. The prof. in question also has a well-known bee in his bonnet about religion (which is not unrelated to the current show)

I don't happen to like what I've seen about HIM, but I do pretty much agree with most of what he is saying. It's all very well having our subjective beliefs but when our national leaders admit to being "think with your gut kind of guys" and taking us to war, not on evidence but on beliefs then surely it's a subject that should interest us all??

[capt_birdseye]

Meh.

[mockney piers]

Finally a voice of reason.

That's exactly the issue. I have no problem with people holding different beliefs, it's when president of an fundamentalist evangelical bent allow their hotline to god to govern policy and when a Prime Minister who hangs around in Mayan birthing pools and values creationism in the science class joins said president on a 'crusade' of all things, then we really do need to worry.

[Keef]

Agreed (as would most I suspect), but are we not changing the subject slightly?

[david_carnell]

At last, we begin to see the bigger picture - and just how damaging belief in superstition can be. Thank you to Sean, CaptB and Mockney for expressing this better than I did.

And apologies to MadWorld for ganging up on you. :)

[SeanMacGabhann]

Depends on what the subject is (after mutating over several pages!)

But if the subject is still the programme and why was he "shooting fish in a barrel" then I don't think we are changing the subject... If we accept (to borrow a phrase) that people buy into "mumbo-jumbo" then it's very easy for anyone in authority to have influence over them. Of course what constitutes "mumbo-jumbo" is the very issue. Very occassionally I will read a horoscope. For the cliched "laugh". I have never evver taken it seriously.

Some of my friends do.... which creeps me out. I'll do something and they will say "oh that is sooo like a Libran" - no it isn't!

[mockney piers]

Not really [Keef], as far as I've read this is the thrust of his argument. That if people aren't being rational in their day to day actions, then how can we expect them to be rational in their choices of politics and policies and politicians.

And how can we voters then expect those politicians to behave rationally.

He's saying, in his horribly sibilant tones, that mediums aren't actually harmless, they're contributing to a dangerous blindspot in the social fabric.

You only have to look at the States (where else) to look at the red states, poor, agrarian, vulnerable, who vote in their droves for a republican party that appeals to their twisted morals but actually sells them down the river or sends them off to war (down a river perhaps) for their buddies in big business and the military.

[Brendan]

Didn't know you worked in a library Sean.

[cdonline]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I'll do something and they will say "oh that is

> sooo like a Libran" - no it isn't!

Typical Libran.