What's so bad about "woo-woo" beliefs?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Could you please provide your evidence supporting that the placebo effect is a hoax as well as that things such as cognitive behavioral therapy are BS?

I don't think they're hoaxes; I just don't think they're magic.

 

[HerDotness]

Why wouldn't they be magick? When we take a medicine, we do so with the will to get better, doesn't matter if its the real thing or a placebo. Studies have shown that placebos can work as well as the actual medicine, so apparently something other than mere chemistry is going on in such instances.

Magick--as opposed to magic--is all about focusing upon a desired outcome and could easily result in triggering the body's ability to heal as a result when all the theories of science tell us that there should be no change in the progression of whatever disease is present.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why wouldn't they be magick?

That depends what you mean by "magick".

If you mean that you think that non-natural forces are responsible for the placebo effect, then I think that you're simply wrong. I think that the evidence shows that it's the result of the interaction of natural phenomena in interesting and sometimes counter-intuitive ways.

If you're speaking from some position like "all acts of will are acts of magic" in the sense that my brain telling my hand to pick something up is "manipulating objects with my thoughts", then I don't think it adds meaning or value to slap the word "magic" on this (with or without a k). In fact, I think it detracts from the discussion, since it suggests the supernatural to many people, so using the term this way puts us back a few steps right off the bat, since we would have to get over the hurdle of explaining what we mean.

So... I think the term "magic(k)" is either wrong or useless when describing the placebo effect, so I don't use it.

 

[beerisit]

Why wouldn't they be magick? When we take a medicine, we do so with the will to get better, doesn't matter if its the real thing or a placebo. Studies have shown that placebos can work as well as the actual medicine, so apparently something other than mere chemistry is going on in such instances.

Magick--as opposed to magic--is all about focusing upon a desired outcome and could easily result in triggering the body's ability to heal as a result when all the theories of science tell us that there should be no change in the progression of whatever disease is present.

I actually think that this "definition" of magick is well within the realms of possibility. We have seen many times remissions and cures of diseases that under normal circumstances should be lethal and are in many other cases. I think HerDotness is suggesting a means by which the human immune system can be encouraged to kick into high gear. I don't know whether that is at all possible, but then I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. That's life.

 

[PolyHedral]

What I'm asking is why so many people are dismissive of New Agers, witches, Pagans and the various other occult faiths-practices?

I am dismissive of all sorts of beliefs, because they don't add any explanatory value to anything. I have no need of those hypotheses.

I actually think that this "definition" of magick is well within the realms of possibility. We have seen many times remissions and cures of diseases that under normal circumstances should be lethal and are in many other cases. I think HerDotness is suggesting a means by which the human immune system can be encouraged to kick into high gear. I don't know whether that is at all possible, but then I'm open to all sorts of possibilities. That's life.

Have you done the statistics to make sure that's not just selection bias?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why wouldn't they be magick? When we take a medicine, we do so with the will to get better, doesn't matter if its the real thing or a placebo. Studies have shown that placebos can work as well as the actual medicine, so apparently something other than mere chemistry is going on in such instances.

Except, placebo effects tend only to create lasting changes in individuals who had very little, if anything, wrong with them in the first place. Are you suggesting that the power of positive thinking could be applied to curing cancer? Because, I assure you, my grandfather was pretty god damned determing to defeat it. Where was the "magick" that would have saved his life?

Magick--as opposed to magic--is all about focusing upon a desired outcome and could easily result in triggering the body's ability to heal as a result when all the theories of science tell us that there should be no change in the progression of whatever disease is present.

And I think labelling such a process "magick" is asinine. We have a perfectly valid, scientific explanation of such processes and their natural explanations without having to evoke the intervention or use of such a concept as "magick". I also hate the term "magick" itself, since it basically just adds the "k" in order to distract from the fact that essentially what it implies is the same thing implied by "magic" - the subversion of natural or physical laws through miraculous or supernatural means.

 

[beerisit]

Except, placebo effects tend only to create lasting changes in individuals who had very little, if anything, wrong with them in the first place. Are you suggesting that the power of positive thinking could be applied to curing cancer? Because, I assure you, my grandfather was pretty god damned determing to defeat it. Where was the "magick" that would have saved his life?


And I think labelling such a process "magick" is asinine. We have a perfectly valid, scientific explanation of such processes and their natural explanations without having to evoke the intervention or use of such a concept as "magick". I also hate the term "magick" itself, since it basically just adds the "k" in order to distract from the fact that essentially what it implies is the same thing implied by "magic" - the subversion of natural or physical laws through miraculous or supernatural means.

So you have a scientifically based explanation for spontaneous remission from fatal diseases?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you have a scientifically based explanation for spontaneous remission from fatal diseases?

Do you have evidence to suggest that it's magic?

 

[A Troubled Man]

That's interesting, considering that occult science and science do not contradict.

Yes, they do contradict one another.

Occult science has been making claims that physics and psychology have begun making.

No, it hasn't be making the same claims.

It really depends on subjective definitions as I said before.

No, it doesn't depend on that.

 

[A Troubled Man]

How about that there is a non-material underlying foundation of the universe (aka quantum physics).

Quantum field theory makes very specific predictions with accurate results. The occult does not.

Or the power of the mind in magick.

Magick has never been shown to exist.

That all that we observe is subjective.

It is? Science does not make that claim.

What about medicine in general.

What about it?

 

[beerisit]

Do you have evidence to suggest that it's magic?

And that seems to be your problem, I have no evidence for anything regarding these occurrences and neither do you or anybody else. The difference is I don't claim to have an answer and am open to possibilities.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you have a scientifically based explanation for spontaneous remission from fatal diseases?

Immune systems? Medical treatments? Placebo effects?

Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it somehow defies naturalistic explanation. Our bodies are equipped to fight diseases - even potentially fatal ones - and sometimes it wins and sometimes it loses. Spontaneous recovery from near death is not magic (or "magick"), it's just one body out of millions happening to win a particularly tough battle that particular day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And that seems to be your problem, I have no evidence for anything regarding these occurrences and neither do you or anybody else.

I disagree. The placebo effect has been studied quite a bit and a lot is known about it. It's a complex thing and not fully understood, but I think you're misrepresenting things if you're saying that magic fits the facts at hand better than naturalistic processes.

The difference is I don't claim to have an answer and am open to possibilities.

I'm open to possibilities; I just don't jump to unsupported conclusions.

 

[beerisit]

I disagree. The placebo effect has been studied quite a bit and a lot is known about it. It's a complex thing and not fully understood, but I think you're misrepresenting things if you're saying that magic fits the facts at hand better than naturalistic processes.



I'm open to possibilities; I just don't jump to unsupported conclusions.

You may need to refresh my memory, where did I support magic? But nevermind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may need to refresh my memory, where did I support magic? But nevermind.

You didn't say so explicitly, but you challenged ImmortalFlame for dismissing magic as an unreasonable explanation.

Maybe it would help if you clearly stated your position.

 

[beerisit]

You didn't say so explicitly, but you challenged ImmortalFlame for dismissing magic as an unreasonable explanation.

Maybe it would help if you clearly stated your position.

I in fact never even responded to the word "magic" and indeed have never made comment on such or used it in this thread. My comments have always been in ralation to the word "magick" as expounded by HerDotness.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I in fact never even responded to the word "magic" and indeed have never made comment on such or used it in this thread. My comments have always been in ralation to the word "magick" as expounded by HerDotness.

I don't make a distinction between the two terms.

AFAIK, the term "magick" was coined to differentiate "real" magic from stage "magic" illusions. Since it's obvious from the context here that we're not talking about sleight-of-hand performed for entertainment, I see no need to worry about the K.

However, if it will allow you to respond to my post and actually tell us what your position is, please feel free to assume that I mean to include "magick" when I say "magic", and vice versa.

 

[beerisit]

Immune systems? Medical treatments? Placebo effects?

Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean it somehow defies naturalistic explanation. Our bodies are equipped to fight diseases - even potentially fatal ones - and sometimes it wins and sometimes it loses. Spontaneous recovery from near death is not magic (or "magick"), it's just one body out of millions happening to win a particularly tough battle that particular day.

Thank you, exactly what I said.

 

[1137]

IThat depends what you mean by "magick".

Magick - The science and act of causing change to occur in conformity with will. I'm so tired of people arguing things they don't even know the slightest about.

If you mean that you think that non-natural forces are responsible for the placebo effect, then I think that you're simply wrong. I think that the evidence shows that it's the result of the interaction of natural phenomena in interesting and sometimes counter-intuitive ways.

Non-natural forces do not exist...

If you're speaking from some position like "all acts of will are acts of magic" in the sense that my brain telling my hand to pick something up is "manipulating objects with my thoughts", then I don't think it adds meaning or value to slap the word "magic" on this (with or without a k). In fact, I think it detracts from the discussion, since it suggests the supernatural to many people, so using the term this way puts us back a few steps right off the bat, since we would have to get over the hurdle of explaining what we mean.

Well, all acts of will do fit the definition but that is not what I was getting at. You see, magick is more like conscious manipulation of your mind. Using symbolism, ritual, etc in order to create that placebo effect. It takes a lot of time and practice to learn what works for you and what does not, which is why it is a practice in itself. If we actually studied this instead of throwing our straw man arguments we would probably learn quite a bit about human psychology.

However, there are also things like primitive magick that seem to work. Entire groups of people dancing for rain that bring it on. Voodoo of course is an interesting one. There are groups who supposedly have thought people to death. Whether I believe this or not I am not sure. However, with things being connected at the deepest level it seems more and more likely.

So... I think the term "magic(k)" is either wrong or useless when describing the placebo effect, so I don't use it.

That is fine with me, but see above. It is more than just the placebo effect.

Quantum field theory makes very specific predictions with accurate results. The occult does not.

Really? Because actually we know from quantum physics that there is a certain level of uncertainty in prediction. Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with my claim that ancients had similar ideas first. They could not possibly have known the complex nature of things like quantum physics and string theory. You cannot really give them crap for that.

Magick has never been shown to exist.

Well considering that people successfully practice it I would never try to live up to your definition of proof.

It is? Science does not make that claim.

Really? That is quite interesting. I guess occult science is far more intelligent than science if science cannot even realize that we interpret things subjectively with our senses.

 

[1137]

Who keeps throwing out the idea that magick deals with the supernatural? Utterly ridiculous.