Woo, Pseudoscience and the limits of relativism

[Quintessence]

I see. Thus your objection is essentially "I personally believe this is BS and don't like it, therefore fraud." That's fair, I guess, but I don't see much point in conversing with you about this topic if that's your perspective. It does make me curious about something else, though. How much do you know about energy work? Have you practiced it or studied it? How much have you talked with those who do to learn the diverse perspectives about how it works and what it is used for?

To the rest of the readers, should I create a thread called "Energy Work - Not What You Think" like I did for Divination a while back?

 

[atanu]

.......... but understanding that the source of that benefit actually comes from a psychological .....

But I am told that the psychological state (intelligence etc.) itself had arisen from inert material and so it should not surprise anyone that crystals can reverse influence the psychological state. He he.

 

[Jainarayan]

I remember in the Thor movie, I believe Thor had said

"You're ancestors called it magic, You call it science. I come from a world where they are one and the same".

He said exactly that.

 

[Jainarayan]

I had a Wiccan friend criticize me for calling Psychics, Astrology and Magic Crystals pseudoscience. He argued that we can't prove that these things don't work (we actually can), and there is energy and forces in the universe we aren't aware of yet (perhaps, but these have no bearing on these types of easily discounted New Age woo). Now, the kicker is that he said that all truth is relative to individuals and people should be able to believe whatever they want.

I find that infuriating because it promotes fraud. It's like a drug company giving sugar pills instead of heart medication or companies manufacturing waterproof boots that leak. Is there any way of disputing this, or does it just disintegrate into solipsism? Are neopagans allowed to openly citizens fraudulent, New Age woo? Is this kind of thinking any more rational than the worst religious fundamentalisms?

While there is a lot of rationalist pagans who practice Wicca like ritualized Taoism, there are all kinds of weird elements that seems to discredit paganism because the movement will accept anything (eg. Otherkin, antivaxing, radical Dianics, Burning Times, dowsing etc.). Other religions have schism to filter out the crazies

This attitude is full of hubris and epic fail. No one has a right to denigrate another person's beliefs based on their own beliefs or dis-beliefs. People are free to believe whatever they want.

 

[Jainarayan]

I also had experience with psychics. One who were actually psychic as opposed to the fake ones.

My sister had a session with one. I am convinced the psychic was real. She told my sister that our deceased mother "said" (I don't know how my mother relayed it) it's about time my sister got the meatball recipe right. There is no way this psychic could have known that for years my sister's meatballs sucked, and that she finally made them right. That's not something you can pick up from body language or facial expressions. Meatballs?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I had a Wiccan friend criticize me for calling Psychics, Astrology and Magic Crystals pseudoscience. … Now, the kicker is that he said that all truth is relative to individuals and people should be able to believe whatever they want.

You seem to be trying to ride two horses at once! Obviously truth is not relative to individuals. But before you dismiss things as nonsense, you need evidence just as much as those who advocate them do.

Do I think crystals have an effect on people? I honestly don't know, and I'm not going to guess on the basis of my ignorance.

Do I think astrology works? No: I know it works, from the rigorous tests conducted by myself and others. Of course, if by "astrology" you mean the predictions made in newspapers, then that is rubbish. Interestingly enough, the research that demonstrated that those predictions do no better than chance was carried out by the Scottish Astrological Association.

 

[Heloise]

You seem to be trying to ride two horses at once! Obviously truth is not relative to individuals. But before you dismiss things as nonsense, you need evidence just as much as those who advocate them do.

Do I think crystals have an effect on people? I honestly don't know, and I'm not going to guess on the basis of my ignorance.

Do I think astrology works? No: I know it works, from the rigorous tests conducted by myself and others. Of course, if by "astrology" you mean the predictions made in newspapers, then that is rubbish. Interestingly enough, the research that demonstrated that those predictions do no better than chance was carried out by the Scottish Astrological Association.

Crystals
1999 Test and 2001 Double-Blind Test
http://www.myinformedlife.co.uk/crystal-therapy-really-work/

"Whether the crystal was real or fake did not produce any significant difference in the strength of the sensations reported by participants. As such, the researchers concluded that the effects the participants reported feeling were more likely to have been caused by the power of suggestion rather than ‘subtle energies unknown to science.’-...

...Both of French’s studies investigating crystal power demonstrated interesting phenomena; of participant susceptibility, priming, and demand characteristics. However, these factors produced patterns in the results regardless of whether the crystal was real or fake. For this reason, the participants’ experience couldn’t possibly be down to minute electrical charges inside the quartz crystals. The researchers concluded that the ‘power of crystals’ is in fact the power of suggestion."

Astrology
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/astrology-and-horoscopes-debunked/
"In another experiment, the famous French Astrologer, Michael Gauquelin, offered free horoscopes to any reader of Ici Paris, if they would give feedback on the accuracy of his supposedly “individual” analysis. He wanted to scientifically test the profession of astrology. As with Forer’s experiment, there was a trick: he sent out thousands of copies of the same horoscope to people of various astrological signs – and 94% of the readers replied that his reading was very accurate and insightful.

What they didn’t know was that the horoscope was that of a local mass murderer, Dr. Petiot, who had admitted during his trial that he had killed 63 people. This is clearly another case of subjective validation where subjects focus on the hits of some general analysis that’s supposed to be unique to them."

An Astronomer's opinion
http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/astrology-and-horoscopes-debunked/
"So what does science have to say about astrology? Phil Plait (a veritable astronomer, not astrologer) summarizes his scientific opinions as follows:

• There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim. Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism). An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.
• Like psychics, astrologers tend to rely on human’s ability to remember “hits” and forget ”misses” – a form of selective bias. Even an accurate predictions may be due to simple chance.
• Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict anyone’s life’s path or destiny.
• There is harm in astrology. It weakens people’s ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.

Without going into further detail, I highly recommend reading the full article on his website."

Pseudoscience and Astrology
http://www.helsinki.fi/teoreettinen...hagard_-_Why_Astrology_Is_A_Pseudoscience.pdf

"A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if:
[228] it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but 1. the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The scientific method. If it is used, then it is science.


Then can you please answer my previous question and explain how it was proven to you?


I find it very suspicious when people claim that something can only be proven by personal experience. I know of no reasonable way that something that can be demonstrated personally without also being able to be demonstrated under reasonable experimental conditions. This is why I am asking precisely how these things were proven to you. If they genuinely can't be demonstrated under the scrutiny of other people, then how exactly can you trust your own conclusions?

I can explain experiences. I know it's real because I have not only seen it, I've felt it. My body, mind and spirit has felt it. I've looked into nature spells and have actually felt the plant's energy through telepathy. No plants don't speak English, but they do understand body language as well as your intentions. With enough experience, you can tell if a plant is happy, in distress, or relaxed. I have had visitations from my recently deceased dad, who had come back through dreams to tell me he was alright. No words were spoken, but I knew what he was saying. I have encountered psychics that knew things no one on the planet knows or could have known AND accurately predicted many things that would happen in my life My brother was in the dark magic and tried showing me ways to do it and I refused to do it. My other brother was injured on his left eye when he was a baby. My mom used a crystal and used a prayer to wave it around his eye. It was a bad gash but the next day it mostly healed. It healed so fast that even the doctor couldn't even explain it.

Those are my reasons why I know it's real. Through experience. I am telling you it is real but you may not believe me, even through recorded video as you may still think it's fake. Your proof will be revealed to you through experience.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm going to ask this again, @Heloise. How much experience and knowledge do you have of these practices you are criticizing? For example, have you studied astrology in any depth? How much have you spoken to practitioners to get their perspectives on various things? I'm still not seeing much in the way of an informed opinion from you here, and a whole lot of "I'm going to bash and spit upon this thing I don't like."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The scientific method. If it is used, then it is science.

Alas, there is no such method

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can explain experiences. I know it's real because I have not only seen it, I've felt it. My body, mind and spirit has felt it. I've looked into nature spells and have actually felt the plant's energy through telepathy. No plants don't speak English, but they do understand body language as well as your intentions. With enough experience, you can tell if a plant is happy, in distress, or relaxed. I have had visitations from my recently deceased dad, who had come back through dreams to tell me he was alright. No words were spoken, but I knew what he was saying.

Well, I can't really question or examine your personal experiences, but can you at least admit to the possibility that there may be other explanations for these experiences? People believe they have communicated with all sorts of things, from aliens to pixies. Are you at the very least willing to accept that it is possible that your experience may not actually be an example of communication with plants, but a result of your personal psychological state? I myself have had direct personal experience of Wiccan magick (or, what I was told was Wiccan magick, at least), and yet I have since concluded that my experience was entirely concocted by my own mind in a desperate desire to believe what I was experiencing was magick.

I have encountered psychics that knew things no one on the planet knows or could have known AND accurately predicted many things that would happen in my life

Personally, I simply refuse to believe that a genuine psychic would make their services privately available before they demonstrated their ability to the scientific community. If their abilities could actually be demonstrated under reasonable experimental conditions, it would change mankind's entire perception of how the mind works and lead to an entirely new kind of research and, at the very least, a Nobel prize.

My brother was in the dark magic and tried showing me ways to do it and I refused to do it. My other brother was injured on his left eye when he was a baby. My mom used a crystal and used a prayer to wave it around his eye. It was a bad gash but the next day it mostly healed. It healed so fast that even the doctor couldn't even explain it.

It's one thing to claim real psychics exist who would only demonstrate their abilities privately rather than demonstrate them to the world at large, but to claim that crystals exist with inexplicable healing powers and that these crystals would not be made available to use in hospitals around the world and save countless lives is simply absurd. Genuinely ask what this would mean if it were actually true. What do you honestly think medical science could do with a breakthrough like that?

Those are my reasons why I know it's real. Through experience. I am telling you it is real but you may not believe me, even through recorded video as you may still think it's fake. Your proof will be revealed to you through experience.

Sadly, without further evidence, I simply do not believe your experiences are reliable. I'm sorry.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Now the kicker is that he said that all truth is relative to individuals and people should be able to believe whatever they want.

When it comes to beliefs I see a lot of tension between truth and comfort. Woo can be very comforting.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is also another benefit to medical placebos. Something like homeopathy is completely harmless and is used instead of conventional medical treatment.

I've had homeopathy and acupuncture in the past, no benefit from either I'm afraid. Perhaps I didn't believe strongly enough that would benefit me?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

"In another experiment, the famous French Astrologer, Michael Gauquelin, offered free horoscopes to any reader of Ici Paris, if they would give feedback on the accuracy of his supposedly “individual” analysis. He wanted to scientifically test the profession of astrology. As with Forer’s experiment, there was a trick: he sent out thousands of copies of the same horoscope to people of various astrological signs – and 94% of the readers replied that his reading was very accurate and insightful.
What they didn’t know was that the horoscope was that of a local mass murderer, Dr. Petiot, who had admitted during his trial that he had killed 63 people. This is clearly another case of subjective validation where subjects focus on the hits of some general analysis that’s supposed to be unique to them."

This, of course, was not "debunking astrology" but showing that people who read "newspaper astrology" are fools and the people who write it are as bad or outright charlatans, I point that I have already made. Also, Gauquelin was not an astrologer, but a professor of biology. One of his research projects was demonstrating the non-random distribution of various planets in the horoscopes of people successful in various professions: i.e. astrology!

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I've had homeopathy and acupuncture in the past, no benefit from either I'm afraid. Perhaps I didn't believe strongly enough that would benefit me?

For accupuncture
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042

As for homeopathy, it cured my migraine. If migraine could be cured by a placebo, how come doctors don't do it?

 

[Heloise]

I'm going to ask this again, @Heloise. How much experience and knowledge do you have of these practices you are criticizing? For example, have you studied astrology in any depth? How much have you spoken to practitioners to get their perspectives on various things? I'm still not seeing much in the way of an informed opinion from you here, and a whole lot of "I'm going to bash and spit upon this thing I don't like."

I certainly have experience of a chiropractor who tried to convince my mother that "adjustments" would cure her vertigo problem and headaches (all it did was cost money and infuriated my father, who only saw my mother not get better).

I dislike Woo for the same reason I dislike Young Earth Creationism and Antivaxing and the antirational thinking that props them up. All of these ideas are reinforced by groups (Christian Fundamentalists, Antivaxers, and New Agers) which promote and protect antirationalist thinking against outside rationalist thought. People who think the world is 6000 years old all have friends, families and pastors who think the same and will viciously defend themselves and their kids against any contrary scientific thinking. They rationalize their way of thinking by appropriating scientific language and promote their version of history based on a perversion of science, archaeology, geology and the scientific method (eg. The Great Flood disrupted the fossil records and dinosaurs existed at the same time as Adam and Eve. In this way believing in pseudoscience isn't any better than being an antivaxer or a Christian Fundamentalist.)

These antirational attacks on science, archaeology, geology, medicine etc, co-op and distort scientific language undermine science, particularly among the uneducated and the ignorant. (Eg. from healingcrystals.com: "Everything contains energy. This energy can be of a high frequency (raising our vibration), a low frequency (grounding) and everything in between." An ignorant person would believe this is actual science language. It isn't. People don't "vibrate". Molecules and Atoms "vibrate" but this have nothing to do with emotions or mental state. Aspirin is a crystal that heals, but does so through chemical action, not by channeling "energy"

 

[Quintessence]

As for homeopathy, it cured my migraine. If migraine could be cured by a placebo, how come doctors don't do it?

Perhaps we owe this to many doctors being beholden to pharmaceutical companies that are out for profit. That, and perhaps people not understanding that a lot of "alternative medicine" practices (spellcraft, energy work, etc.) can be explained as taking advantage of "mere" placebo effect for one's own benefit.

 

[Quintessence]

I certainly have experience of a chiropractor who tried to convince my mother that "adjustments" would cure her vertigo problem and headaches (all it did was cost money and infuriated my father, who only saw my mother not get better).

It's too bad that this happened. I know next to nothing about chiropractics, so I have no opinions about it one way or another. I understand how having a bad experience with something can make one hate something, though.

I dislike Woo for the same reason I dislike Young Earth Creationism and Antivaxing and the antirational thinking that props them up. All of these ideas are reinforced by groups (Christian Fundamentalists, Antivaxers, and New Agers) which promote and protect antirationalist thinking against outside rationalist thought.

It seems to me that anti-rationalist thinking happens when we judge something without taking the time to study it or give it a fair hearing. Put another way, anti-rationalist thinking is being a "skeptic" who exhibits knee-jerk reactions against anything that fits a particular profile, rather than taking the time to learn and understand what one is reacting against and applying critical thinking to it. For better or worse, the average person's understanding of metaphysical topics is about as good as their understanding of the sciences - which is to say, it is terrible. Yet in both of these cases, people judge and assess these topics based on limited knowledge.

From what I've seen of your posting in this thread - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you don't know much about these things you're criticizing. In order to properly critique and criticize a topic, one has to be knowledgable about it. And don't get me wrong - there are plenty of valid criticisms. Just not the sort of broad brush dismissal you seem to be doing here.

(Eg. from healingcrystals.com: "Everything contains energy. This energy can be of a high frequency (raising our vibration), a low frequency (grounding) and everything in between." An ignorant person would believe this is actual science language. It isn't. People don't "vibrate". Molecules and Atoms "vibrate" but this have nothing to do with emotions or mental state. Aspirin is a crystal that heals, but does so through chemical action, not by channeling "energy"

I think I see what some of the problem is here. Various subculture all have their own specialized lexicon that transcends a standard dictionary, or the understanding of terms to those outside of that subculture. When outsiders read the term "energy" they often think it means energy as understood in sciences, but that's not what it means within the community. "Energy" for those who practice energy work and the like should be understood as a synonym for concepts like "chi" and "prana." Sometimes those terms are used, but for better or worse, "energy" has become the default term. Much of the rest of this is symbolic language that you don't understand unless you study what it means from the insider perspective. To make things more complicated, the communities don't exactly agree on how all this stuff works or how to interpret it.

I suppose my angle on this is less the "an ignorant person would believe this is actual science language" than "a person ignorant about the symbolic language of these communities might believe this is actual science language." Not sure it's fair to blame the community of energy workers for outsiders being ignorant of the lexicon when they don't take the time to learn it.

 

[Heloise]

It seems to me that anti-rationalist thinking happens when we judge something without taking the time to study it or give it a fair hearing. Put another way, anti-rationalist thinking is being a "skeptic" who exhibits knee-jerk reactions against anything that fits a particular profile, rather than taking the time to learn and understand what one is reacting against and applying critical thinking to it. For better or worse, the average person's understanding of metaphysical topics is about as good as their understanding of the sciences - which is to say, it is terrible. Yet in both of these cases, people judge and assess these topics based on limited knowledge.

From what I've seen of your posting in this thread - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you don't know much about these things you're criticizing. In order to properly critique and criticize a topic, one has to be knowledgable about it. And don't get me wrong - there are plenty of valid criticisms. Just not the sort of broad brush dismissal you seem to be doing here.

From what I understand, the only way to gain knowledge of pseudoscience is through experience. Experience is a poor way of knowing something, because our perceptions are easily distorted and tend to conform to our biases. If I glean knowledge of a subject from reading about it in a book or series of books (history, science etc.), I can become fairly "knowledgeable" about something. The rigorous academic study of these topics involve double-blind studies, use of primary sources, and scientific methodology. Books about science and history which rely on inference, supposition, secondary sources etc. are usually not very good science and history books.

Real science and medicine have a theoretical and practical element (eg. the biochemical action of Aspirin works and this ultimately makes the patient's headache go away). Real medicine can be duplicateable (eg. if someone gave me a strong sedative and someone else a strong sedative, we would both become sleepy). Real biochemistry exists regardless of my belief in it.

If all the books I read that decry pseudoscience employ reason, objectivity and scientific methodology, why should I need to "experience" woo to understand it. Experience is poor test of what is true or not, especially since our perceptions are so malleable and our confirmation bias so exceptionally strong. If double-blind studies indicate that people can't tell the difference between fake and real "magic" crystals, there is no reason why I should believe in crystals.

 

[Quintessence]

From what I understand, the only way to gain knowledge of pseudoscience is through experience. Experience is a poor way of knowing something, because our perceptions are easily distorted and tend to conform to our biases.

While I can't be certain about what you mean by experience, doesn't all human knowledge ultimately come from sensing and experiencing the world around us? Furthermore, doesn't the vast majority of our day to day living entail experience? I guess I'm very perplexed by the dismissive attitude you seem to have regarding day-to-day life. I also wonder about things like job applications... that thing they look for called "experience." Yet all the experiences we have are poor ways of knowing things? Oh my... it makes me wonder how I got my current job, if this thing called "experience" is so poor!

Flippancy aside, no, you don't have to "experience" it. Read about it and listen to people who practice, just like you possibly do for any other subject. Just like it's a poor idea to look to understand the sciences from non-scientists, it's a poor idea to look to understand something like astrology from someone who isn't an astrologer. One should seek to make one's informed opinions based on the informed experts - the people who are in the field. Yes?

I suppose I have a question for you, in relation to the rest of what you posted. Would you consider yourself an adherent of scientism? That is to say, you believe that Science!™ is the only appropriate way for humans to obtain knowledge and that everything else is BS?