Why say Magic instead of Placebo?

[crossfire]

Observation: this thread seems to be following the spirit of this poem:

Poem “The centipede”
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)


A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said “Pray which leg moves after which ?”
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.

​

Is the centipede's ability to perfectly coordinate all of her legs magic?
When questioned about it, she becomes upset and paralyzed, and can't describe how she does it.

Conclusion: the conscious mind can't conscioiusly handle all unconscious processes without tripping itself up. However, this by no means indicates that the centipede is incapable of walking.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Observation: this thread seems to be following the spirit of this poem:

Poem “The centipede”
by Mrs Edmund Craster (d. 1874)


A centipede was happy quite,
Until a toad in fun
Said “Pray which leg moves after which ?”
This raised her doubts to such a pitch
She fell exhausted in a ditch,
Not knowing how to run.

While lying in this plight,
A ray of sunshine caught her sight;
She dwelt upon its beauties long,
Till breaking into happy song,
Unthinking she began to run,
And quite forgot the croakers fun.

​

Is the centipede's ability to perfectly coordinate all of her legs magic?
When questioned about it, she becomes upset and paralyzed, and can't describe how she does it.

Conclusion: the conscious mind can't conscioiusly handle all unconscious processes without tripping itself up. However, this by no means indicates that the centipede is incapable of walking.

I would disagree, I think that my repose would be there are many stories hat teach bad or null lessons.

 

[crossfire]

I would disagree, I think that my repose would be there are many stories hat teach bad or null lessons.

Is the placebo effect a wholly conscious process whereby every step of the healing can be consciously described by science?

 

[1137]

Is the placebo effect a wholly conscious process whereby every step of the healing can be consciously described by science?

That's a good point, because the answer is absolutely "no".

 

[Shiranui117]

***MOD POST***​

Everyone, please keep in mind rules 1 and 3 while posting:


1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

Thank you for your cooperation.

-Shiranui117, on behalf of RF Staff

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok so what value does language have?

Im sorry if that is how it sounded, but the question was indeed sincere.

I'm sure it was. However, I'm unsure as to what the relevance is. The value of language itself, regardless of context, isn't so much determined by the vairous meanings of words. In terms of the sciences, it illuminates the vast scope of the human brain's capabilities; in terms of socializing, it allows us to keep misunderstandings to a great minimum (compared to other social animals that seem to lack complex languages).

Are you asking about the value of English specifically, or in organically-evolved languages as opposed to conlangs, in terms of effective and efficient communication?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

That's not what I was asking. Anyone with access to a public library can read (pardon, it would be more accurate to say "attempt to read") peer-reviewed literature. That is a very different thing than being directly involved in the processes that lead to their creation, including but not limited to writing grant proposals, reviewing grant proposals, and allocating funding. It sounds to me like you're a layperson passing judgement rather than someone with relevant expertise who can thus meaningfully comment upon how research and sciences operate. Would you describe yourself as anti-science?

So you claim that the validity of a study is something only special people with special powers can ascertain?

As for science, I would say that despite wonderful advances in technology over the last century,
there has been very little real advancement in science during this time.
In fact there is a tendency for the term 'science' to become increasingly associated with blind
dogma and the corruption of this once noble epistemology, which is why I describe myself
as a 'logical positivist', and consider the esoteric notion of 'special ability' to be the quintessential
definition of academic corruption.

Let me use an example.

At a university with which I am more than a little bit acquainted, the 'boss-man' is given a very large
amount of money to fund research and student fees, etc. So this person invests all the money in
some or other scheme of one of his cronies so that it now pays out 2%-4% of the original amount each year 'forever'.

Now the students are all protesting in the streets as they cannot afford the fee-hikes, and the lecturers
are demanding 'special protection' and extra body guards as the student mob is becoming more
aggressive in its actions.

Do you consider this scenario:
A) normal
B) justified
C) science
D) satan's little game

btw
So you claim that the validity of a study is something only special people with special powers can ascertain?
Do you consider science to be likewise something only for those with special powers?
Did you know that the definition of witchcraft is the claim that it is the domain only for those with 'special powers'?

 

[Quintessence]

@Jonathan Ainsley Bain,

Let's focus here, because you're not addressing the question posed in spite of it being an extremely simple "yes-no" question. You said earlier:

But people normally use language more complex than required in order to disguise a lack of genuine analysis.
This has a terrible negative impact on how funding is allocated in academia, as it is often used to pull the wool over the eyes of the taxpayer.

A response like this suggests you have firsthand insight into how funding allocation is done in academia, that is, that you have experience reviewing and improving grants. So, I asked you this:

Beg your pardon, but I have to ask. What is your experience in handling grant funding and allocation in academia (aka, at public and private universities)?

To which you responded with a non-answer. Can you please just answer the question? Either way, a critical follow-up question is "could you tell me what resources you consulted to arrive at this opinion so I can consult them myself and come to my own conclusions?"

I haven't been directly involved in grant approvals and funding allocations either, but I'm interested in learning more about how it works. It seems probable that you are not interested in an objective appraisal of how allocation works, and are merely a non-expert layperson passing judgment on something s/he knows little about. If that's the case, that's fine, but it means this conversation is a waste of my time and yours.

P.S. Your definition of witchcraft was hilariously erroneous, by the way. I laughed.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

@Jonathan Ainsley Bain,

Let's focus here, because you're not addressing the question posed in spite of it being an extremely simple "yes-no" question. You said earlier:



A response like this suggests you have firsthand insight into how funding allocation is done in academia, that is, that you have experience reviewing and improving grants. So, I asked you this:



To which you responded with a non-answer. Can you please just answer the question? Either way, a critical follow-up question is "could you tell me what resources you consulted to arrive at this opinion so I can consult them myself and come to my own conclusions?"

I haven't been directly involved in grant approvals and funding allocations either, but I'm interested in learning more about how it works. It seems probable that you are not interested in an objective appraisal of how allocation works, and are merely a non-expert layperson passing judgment on something s/he knows little about. If that's the case, that's fine, but it means this conversation is a waste of my time and yours.

P.S. Your definition of witchcraft was hilariously erroneous, by the way. I laughed.

Well if I amused you then it certainly was not a waste of time, eh?
Humor is a most serious business!

I have always believed that private funding ensures that the person doing the study will focus more effectively as they are using their own money.
I have been involved in more than 20 academic departments, whilst paying for myself.
I have come to realize that the vast majority of the academic process is bogged down by verbosity in the guise of analysis.
In Psychology, this is especially so. Such that Psychology has mostly being going backwards for the last quarter of a century.

It would be far better if people were allocated funds that could be freely used in whatever way they wanted.
To do this the money would need to be earned privately. Then there would be less studies that pay lip-service to viability.
Corrupt people could take all their money and spend it as it pleases them, freeing up academic space for serious studies.

I have not been directly involved with fund allocation for these reasons, and have never applied for funding either.
But I have much direct experience with real people in the academic environment, and have observed corruption on a colossal scale.
All such corruption was made easy by the amount of public funding available.
The net result is that academia is fast becoming the territory of those who ensure each other's corrupt activities.
This is not only in the form of finance, but in all other types of ethical issues.
Anyone who is not corrupt is then excluded as this threatens them.

Its sad when observing post-grad ethics students and professors, blatantly cheating for each others mutual benefit.
(Economic and otherwise)
But then, when they closed down the Divinity faculty, this was the next step.

 

[Quintessence]

@Jonathan Ainsley Bain, fair enough. Your observations are not in keeping with my own experience in academia, nor are your opinions on privatizing academia the same as my own. As this is tangential to the thread, I'm going to leave it there, however.