Have you tried:[ul][]Waving your hands around in a circle[]Waving your hands around in a square[]Waving your hands around while chanting magical incantations[]Waving your hands around while chewing gum and listening to New Age music[]Believing very strongly that you can heal yourself[]Altering your aura[]Taunting your chakras[]Tickling your fancy?[/ul]
Oh, my. The woo is even stronger in this one than it first appeared.
Is that what they’re calling it now? “Hey baby, let me put part of my personal energy inside you.” 
I think you’re taking the “religion” aspect a bit too seriously, especially in regards to complaining about your beliefs being “blasphemed” against. It’s revealing though to see a reiki believer acknowledging that their belief is akin to religion. Given this state of affairs, you’re best off not attempting to drag science into the equation. Just declare that your beliefs are Revealed Truth, and you will be as immune to skepticism, sarcasm and debunking of inanity as, say, kanicbird. As TriPolar suggests, you are committing a fatal error by invoking science in front of people who appreciate what science actually is.
Haven’t been to many family restaurants lately, I see. :dubious:
Linking to your post is defaming you? That says a lot, but not about me.
Have I? From what I have seen many of these members have provided a weak argument which I defeat. Then because I have negated their argument, they go on a non-contributing posting rampage.
There contributions or lack-there-of. Have only shown the strength at which I have approached in this debate. And only shows that this thread can keep going, and has lasted 5 pages now.
Examples:
Sh1bu1, DMC, Musicat, Jackmannii.
First, I will provide respect to everyone until they break that respect to me. I will continue using this philosophy as further readers will realize, that I approached this conversation with respect and dignity. And though some(not all) have approached this conversation with sarcasm and judgement, these members only show their non-receptivity of alternative thinking, and only provide a narrow minded perspective, shows their morals and personality.
Ultimately, they are hurting their own argument by being sarcastic and judgemental.
My beliefs only came onto topic as the non-contributing rampagers started trying to cling onto everything they can. This again only supports my argument, because they are verifying that they no longer want to debate, they want to provide external and useless information not part of this topic. They lost, they accepted it, and now they are grabbing onto whatever they have left. My beliefs are obviously what they would go first, and I knew it would happen.
So, as per your previous comments, you say that my alternative studies do not give a proper analysis of the difference between placebo reiki, and reiki.
I provided the analysis as well as the cause and effect, or Methods(Cause), and Results(Effect).
And now you are saying that this is not acceptable on your definition of science.
For clafication purposes. Please provide what you find is acceptable as science.
How much more wrong this statement could be? I will defend my beliefs, but you immediately suggesting I am preaching about how awesome reiki is, is completely wrong.
I am not discussing my beliefs, I am providing scientific evidence. If you are not accepting this as providing scientific evidence, provide me with new and updated scientific evidence–under your acceptance of science–that provides a stronger argument that reiki does not provide results.
If you are going to then say - “woo woo such as Reiki is not tested by my science.” Then show that alternative medicine provides a stronger argument that reiki does not provide results.
I will not expose these as your views as long as you are consistent on your declarations of what is, and is not, science.
Bold is mine.
If you are saying that I am not dealing with children, and then saying they are mature and polite. You are comparing “mature and polite” to the members of this site which have shown neither maturity, nor politeness.
Let’s take a look at this. That the members of this site, I have declared are NOT Mature, and NOT Polite. That you are saying they are, and above children standards.
[QUOTE=DMC]
Linking to your post is defaming you? That says a lot, but not about me.
[/QUOTE]
Perfect representation of: “Nuh-Uh. You not me…”
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Is that what they’re calling it now? “Hey baby, let me put part of my personal energy inside you.”
[/QUOTE]
Perfect representation of Politeness and Maturity.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
Have you tried:
Waving your hands around in a circle
Waving your hands around in a square
Waving your hands around while chanting magical incantations
Waving your hands around while chewing gum and listening to New Age music
Believing very strongly that you can heal yourself
Altering your aura
Taunting your chakras
Tickling your fancy?
[/QUOTE]
The Politeness and Maturity of this one is overwhelming. I think I’m getting heat flashes.
Mature and polite.…Psh… Yeah right.
I have, and I have. Nothing has changed. Since you are implying that I have not stuck to them. Please provide evidence of this claim.
You haven’t defeated any arguments. You’ve provided the testimony of gullible, ignorant people.
I understand that you really want this to be true, but that has no bearing on the factual efficacy of thinking happy thoughts at a disease.
Let’s see, so far I have completely skewered the first of your links that you posted as evidence of Reiki’s “effectiveness” and since then have simply let your own words (elsewhere) speak for themselves, and boy do they say a lot. As for the “strength” at which you have approached this debate, perhaps if you put less of your “energy” inside of your friends as well as less time performing reiki on yourself with your third eye exposed, you’d have some strength left over to make an actual point. So far, your posts are full of words, but little else. Seriously, the absolutely best counterargument to your stance is your very own post, which I linked to. Why fight ignorance when it beats itself up without any help from us?
So now you are agreeing with inconsistent comments?
You have now solidified your irrelevance to this topic.
Still waiting on those reports of gullibility and ignorance.
The only thing you have skewered is your own points of view when after all this time you have not even denied an anthrax murderer is not within your acceptable realm of science.
Anymore comments?
rich2600, did you ever provide an example of some practice that used to be part of “alternative medicine” that was dropped because it was tested and found to be ineffective?
I don’t need a long answer, just a “Yes, I mentioned X” or “No, I can’t think of any”. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
Ok I’ll keep the answer short. No, because other practices are not involved in this discussion. Only reiki.
Okay, that is a fair answer. What evidence would be necessary for you to drop reiki as ineffective?
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, yes (although what the fuck you’re on about regarding anthrax, I have no idea, since I haven’t commented in any way about such musings). Some good has even come out of this thread. My wife occasionally participates in various forms of alternative medicine and I just sort of roll my eyes and hope that she gets at least a bit of help via the placebo effect. I explained today that Reiki is off limits as there is a definite chance of her being exposed to some stranger’s third eye or offers of having them stick their “energy” inside of her.
If your goal is to completely destroy the market for all Reiki practitioners, you’re definitely on the right track. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the question Shodan.
I assume you meant “drop reiki as effective”.
If you could provide me with data from the alternative medicine field which disproves reiki in the majority sense.
I will drop this topic and move on.
You may bring into light scientific data that shows reiki and its ineffectivity, from the mainstream science, but this is very limited, so alternative science would be a better representation.
Sound good as reiki practitioners(or pretty much everyone) do not usually like supporters of murderer’s.
Calling me a supporter of a murderer sounds pretty insulting, especially since I haven’t mentioned ANYTHING about anthrax, murder, or the like, other than quoting your idiotic reference to it in my last post. Have a cite to where in this thread (or elsewhere, for that matter) I support murder before I report this post?
Shodan, to keep you from having to read through this entire thread (I’m not that mean). This was earlier in the thread:
[QUOTE=mufatango]
So, can you imagine any evidence that would change your mind about your assertion that Reiki deserves respect?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rich2600]
No.
[/QUOTE]
Posts 138 and 139 if you’d like to see them in context, not that it changes anything.
So far, you have exposed personal information of mine, not related to this thread, and then went on a session of insulting me because of it, with other members.
I am still waiting for moderators to get around to this direct insult and defamation of character which you directly inserted.
If you want to go and say “But…but…I’ll tell on you” Go for it. Just understand it’s a two way street of disrespect.
[QUOTE=rich2600]
[QUOTE=DMC]
Due to the overwhelming abundance of links that rich2600 has tossed out (yet apparently not actually read), I’m not going to go through each of them. I did grab the first one he used as a rebuttal and was able to find out more info about two of the three authors of the study:
#1: Oona McFarlane
#2: Nicole Mackay
They might be lovely young ladies, but I’m not going to give a lot of credence any “study” that they author, as they send my woowoo meter off the charts.
[/QUOTE]
The bold is mine.
Hello fellow contributor that has not read my comments.
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Now that presumptions are applicable, you have failed to follow through with your request of documents that you would read and then debate. By now, I have read them all. and finally you have failed to provide an alternative medical diagnosis of reiki being unsuccessful in the majority sense.
[/QUOTE]
Now that you assume I take full responsibility for the persons involved with the research involved in my articles and since you are discounting the entire alternative medication field, and then referencing them as woowoo meter additions. I assume you are accepting the responsibility of all of the research scientists that practice within the “approved” scientific fields.
Let me introduce you to Bruce Edwards Ivins: Army Research Scientist who commited the anthax murders.
What was that?
I hear a “But that doesn’t apply to me, because I didn’t quote him”, coming.
Wrong. You assumed I take responsibilities for the researchers actions within their personal lives. If you are going to label me as the responsible party for these researchers, then I can label you as responsible for any of the research scientists which is in validation of your science.
If you are going to investigate each and every member of the research teams of the articles I provide, go for it. Just accept that you are also labeling yourself as a supporter of the more extreme kind within the entire realm of science, since you have failed to specify otherwise.
Oh and the finale of:
“You have specified the articles, you support them, that means you support those specific authors, you can’t use a blanket statement among all acceptable science.”
Wrong again, I support the articles and the research methods they use. Not the authors.
You are implying blanket statements, in rebuttal, I can absolutely use blanket statements.
[/QUOTE]
You sarcastically implied that I support these women that performed this study.
And this is what I sarcastically implied. On multiple levels.
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Sound good as reiki practitioners(or pretty much everyone) do not usually like supporters of murderer’s.
[/QUOTE]
Is that still unclear? You slap on the implications. I slap on the implications.
I have not even exposed your personal life.
And you have dumped mine all over this thread.
Who is more insulted here?
Despite DMC’s kind précis of the thread, I forge ahead undeterred.
What do you mean by “alternative science”, and how does it differ from regular science?
But again, since you decline to mention anything that has ever been dropped from alternative medicine, I have no idea how the level of proof can be determined.
Maybe it will help to explain what I mean by “science”. It operates more or less like the following -
[ul][li]Observe something.[/li][li]Formulate a theory as to why it happens. That theory must be testable, and it should be as simple as possible - Occam’s razor, and so forth.[/li][li]Create an experiment that changes one of the factors that your theory says causes the phenomenon you observed. Make a prediction of how that change will affect the phenomenon.[/li][li]Conduct the experiment. If the results are as you predicted, that is evidence that your theory is correct. If not, then your theory needs to be tweaked or abandoned.[/ul][/li]
Is this similar to how “alternative science” works, or if not, could you describe how it does?
Regards,
Shodan
Complementary and Alternative Medicine.
What is it/How does it differ:
Alternative medicineis any healing practice “that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine”.[1] In some instances, it is based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than a scientific (i.e. evidence-based) basis. Critics assert that the terms “complementary” and “alternative medicine” are deceptive euphemisms meant to give an impression of medical authority.
[Quote=Shodan]
But again, since you decline to mention anything that has ever been dropped from alternative medicine, I have no idea how the level of proof can be determined.
[/Quote]
Unfortunately this is incorrect, you asked if I HAD provided anything. Within this thread, as of this post, I have no posted anything that has been dropped from alternative medicine, nor would I because it has no value to add to a conversation about reiki.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Maybe it will help to explain what I mean by “science”. It operates more or less like the following -
[ul][li]Observe something.[/li][li]Formulate a theory as to why it happens. That theory must be testable, and it should be as simple as possible - Occam’s razor, and so forth.[/li][li]Create an experiment that changes one of the factors that your theory says causes the phenomenon you observed. Make a prediction of how that change will affect the phenomenon.[/li][li]Conduct the experiment. If the results are as you predicted, that is evidence that your theory is correct. If not, then your theory needs to be tweaked or abandoned.[/ul][/li]
Is this similar to how “alternative science” works, or if not, could you describe how it does?
[/QUOTE]
They(alternative science) do not stick the standards of scientific methods.
The United States’ National Science Foundation has defined alternative medicine as “all treatments that have not been proven effective using scientific methods.”
Alternatively, this does not invalidate their procedures, as even former editors of JAMA support alternative studies. If you want to stick to the opinions of JAMA’s studies, and not JAMA’s editors, I understand.
But that does not show that NCCAM hasn’t been successful or explicity growing, as even a skeptic site requests separation of it’s studies.
rich2600, linking to material you wrote on this same subject under the same username you’ve used here is not defamatory and it isn’t all that personal. It’s right there for Google searching. You need to stop making personal comments about other posters. You are doing that more than you are making your own arguments. Meanwhile, everyone else is instructed to tone down the sarcasm and snide comments. If this thread does not take an immediate turn for the better, it’s getting closed.