 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 08:57 AM Here are some links where Reiki and other alternative healing modalities are being explored. http://www.whccamp.hhs.gov/fr2.html http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2004/mar/03reiki.html http://www.harthosp.org/IntMed/outcomes.htm#sleepnausea I hope some readers are awakened to the potential of a human body and mind. If you are interested in energy healing; here is a link to my website where you can learn the basics of HUNA free of charge. http://www.geocities.com/huna101 ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 05:50 AM Here are some facts for the people who dogmaticaly cling to scientific theory. FACT: May 7th I was 8 days old, and I went through the windshield of the car and across the road. My Mother and sister were killed, and my right eye came completely out of the socket. FACT: May 12th; the doctors had put my eye back in, discovered that my pituitary gland at the base of the brain was injured, and given me a 0% chance of survival. and if by some miracle I survived; I would never be anything more than a vegetable. FACT: June 1995; I was in a car accident, and my Aunt had left her umbrella on the dashboard of the car and the umbrella hit me on the side of the head. I was not hurt in the accident; but my doctor wanted me to have an MRI (just in case the umbrella had done more damage than first thought). FACT: June 1995; I take the MRI results to my doctor, and he findsa 6 mm tumor on my pituitary gland. The doctor wanted to do surgeryl but I would not permit it. FACT: February 1998; my pituitary gland completely shut down, and I am in the hospital and only days away from death. Since the pituitary is the master gland; it produces 6 different hormones over one's life. one is HGH, another one causes puberty, another one is precursors that activate the thyroid gland, and I'm sure the other three hormones produced by the pituitary activate and balance the other glands of the endoctine system. My doctor put me on 15 mg of Cortef, and 100 mcg of Synthroid, and gave me perscriptions of Potasium, and another drug, and told me categorically that I would have to take those for the rest of my life. in 6 months; the drugs had destroyed my quality of life, and I had added 30% to my body weight. FACT: February 1999; a friend suggested I study HUNA. I read a few books by Madeleine C. Morris, Max Freedom Long, and Scott Cunningham, and I told my friend the following about HUNA "Not only no; but HELL NO!" FACT: in July 1999; I was obese, depressed, and eating a starvation diet of 700 calories a day (A Big Mac used to have more than 1,100 calories!), and STILL gaining weight! I stopped taking the medication, and after 6 days without the medicationl I was on death's door, and in the hospital again with my kidneys and bowels shut down. (I was not practising HUNA then. Only Reiki, Actualism, Qigong, etc, and all of those use mental lifeforce energy and not spiritual lifeforce energy). I persuade my doctor to take me off of of the medications (potassium, and the other one I do not remember). FACT: August 1999; Cortef and Synthroid STILL destroyed my quality of life;; but by recognizing the symptoms of my health problem; and only taking the medication when my body sent me the symptoms to take the medication. I began taking the medication every three days, and supplementing the healing with Reiki; (so I had one day of hell and two days worth living). FACT: March 2000 I was still using Reiki; but a friend introduced me to Crystal healing. By placing an amethyst in my water bottle (and another one under my pillow at night), using Reiki, and taking the medication when I felt the symptoms; I was able to to take the medication only once every 7-10 days. FACT: October 2000; I was outside praying to the Great Spirit asking for guidance, and I had two mystical experinces in two minutes. 1. Three mourning doves flew up while I was praying, and they landed no more than 7 feet from where I stood, and proceeded to walk around my feet as if I were invisible. After a bit of time; I remembed that the dove is the symbol of peace, and in HUNA there is one commandment "Harm nothing with hatred", and there were three doves, and I remembered in HUNA there are three selves (Unihipili, Uhane, and 'Aumakua. Serge Kahili King calls then Ku, Lono, and Kane). 2. I asked the Great Spirit if the doves were a sign that I should study HUNA; for the wind to stop, and the wind stopped in 5 or 10 seconds. I finished the prayer, and thanked the Great Spirit for the guidance I had received, and ended my prayer. About 3 seconds after ending my prayer; the doves noticed my presence, and flew off in a big hurry. Fact: October 2000; I found much better HUNA books written by Charlotte Berney, Allan P. Lewis, Clark Wilkerson, etc. "Hawaiian Magic" by Clark Wilkerson was written in 1968, and I have seen this book sell for as much as $500. Right now; there is a copy of "Hawaiian Magic up for bids, and has 6 days left. The auction # is 3928523694, and it has 15 bids from 6 or 7 different bidders, and a top bid of $150! Fact: November 2003; I gave a HUNA workshop n Atlanta, Ga, and after spending 6 hours to teach them the spiritual technology of HUNA, and each of them received a healing, and participated in doing a healing for the others; then I told then about my little friend on the pituitary gland. These students were not professional healers, and all the knowledge they had about healing was the 6 hour workshop, and first hand experience they gained by doing. Fact: September 5th 2004: Since November 2003 at the HUNA workshop; I have only taken my the medication a total of 6 times, and I did not really need to take the medication two of those times. I took the medication in April before visiting a friend out of state, and I took the medication before going to Canada in July. (I did not waht to have to take my medication on the trip and have to go through a day of hell, and far away from home. With these FACTS, and a plethora of first hand experiences; I have the following to say to the debunkers who dismiss natural healings out of hand or try to dismiss individual healings as anectodal "Everyone is entitled to their opinion; even when they're wrong" or "There are only two opinions that matter to me and neither of them is yours!" ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 05 Sep 04 - 05:46 AM Thanks for all your input, Two Bears. I doubt your stories will convince anyone though. After all, they are only the usual questionable second-hand anecdotes - why should they? A few years ago I'd have read them and thought "Yeah right - and don't look now, but Santa Claus is on his way down the chimney too!" (Actually, that is exactly what I thought the first time I was offered Reiki and had it explained to me). The more scientific and scholarly-minded folds here prefer "empirical evidence" over anecdotes, and that's understandable. Only problem is they'll probably be pushing up daisies by the time any such "empirical evidence" (which may or may not be honest "empirical evidence") is produced and made available to the public by the scientific community. So the only "empirical evidence" I can offer at this time is the chance to produce their own "evidence" and "Bridge that chasm" for themselves, once and for all, by experiencing the effects of life-force energy first-hand. No one has taken me up on it yet, and that's not surprising either. If I hadn't been in so much pain from that cat-bite through my fingernail years ago, I wouldn't have been interested in trying Reiki either - and I may never have discovered the truth. IT was a case of being desperate enough to try a technique I'd never heard of before, to take a chance and trust the stranger sitting beside me who'd offered it to me in compassion. Well, I'm not going to hope somebody here lapses into some sort of hellish pain so I'll be asked to give a demonstration, that's for sure! But if even one person finds something helpful in anything I've posted above, it will have been worth the time and energy I've spent here. That's why I posted what I did - not to engage in the formidable (and certainly thankless) task of attempting to "convince" a die-hard debunker or skeptic via the written word. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 03:43 AM subconscious level they feel unworthy or afraid of receiving healing energy, then they will NOT allow the healing changes to take place. We are all free agents - and that means free to choose pain, sickness, even death over the opportunity to heal. Absolutely correct Daylia: This is why I say than 98% of all healings happen between the ears. ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 03:24 AM Rather than start an interminable argument over minutiae, I will just point out that in India and China, seen by many New Agers as the twin fonts of wisdom, those who can afford to use western medicine, not the traditional forms. When results are all that matters, science is the only thing that works consistently. Mack: There is another font of Wisdom (Hawai'i). You are absolutely correct. Results is all that matter. With these skeptics, and you list results; they dismiss the results as anecdotal. We mystics can not get them to think outside the box, or to even try this spiritual technology to see if it works for them, (when they get to be judge, jury, and prosecutor). From your "mouth watering" quotes she sounds like she's putting a new spin on the New Age, not building a bridge for skeptics. SRS: If we mystics WERE to build a bridge; the skeptics would not have the courage to walk across it *daylia* you ought to move to farm country - they could use your help. You have more bullshit in your post than a farmer puts on 1000 acres in ten years. The one thing you have proven is that your IQ is below 70 or you wouldn't believe that grabage. Skeptic: What have you proven other than you have a small mind and a small heart? Daylia and I have seen these mystical things work time after time. To us mystica this is NOT BS. This spiritual technology WORKS! From my tone, you can probably guess that I'm a sceptic. Not that I want to be, of course. I would love to be able to believe that a quartz crystal can cleanse my chakras or that remotely channelled reiki energy can heal the damaged ligaments in my knee, but I have yet to see proof. metal into gold, I have seen people being exploited and even damaged by 'New Age' practitioners - including one woman I know who went blind through diabetes because she believed her 'healer' and not her GP. Gervase: I HAVE seen the proof; that lifeforce energy (hands on and via distance) works. Read my website about Tammy F's hand, and ask Daylia about her friend Mike, and Joy H who attended my HUNA workshop in Atlanta last November. Joy had hurt her foot some time before, and she was in serious pain. Both Daylia and I had done healings and absolutely NOTHING happened. I figured her subconscious mind was blocking the healing by feeling as if she deserved to be in pain; so I asked her what the injury was keeping her from doing, after a bit of persuasion; she admitted that she liked to dance, so I gathered another surcharge of energy and this visualized her dancing. then after about two minutes.; Joy smiled and said "Two Bears; I don't know what just happened; but I fest something shift in my foot." and for the redt of the day at the workshop; she was walking around free of pain. Gervase; about the diabetic you mentioned above. When I give a workshop; I tell people of a healer says something like that; they should RUN. and furthermore; these healing modalities should NEVER be used in place of receiving proper health care. I wonder if our guest would trade in those massages for the medical/scientific side of things if they were lying in bed, their body ravaged by cancer or with their failing liver slowing poisoning the body. Sledge; with Chemotherapy; the scientists are trying to kill the cancer before the chemo therapy kills the patient. continually trumped or debunked by science. Skeptics are important for debunk frauds like the "healers" from the Philippines who palm chicken livers and do phony surgery for gullible believers. There are always going to be people in the world who need to be protected from themselves, because they don't have the tools to figure out a scam when it's put in front of them. SRS: did they actualy record the Philapine healers palming chicken liver on video tape? or did a debunker like the Unamazing Randi try to explain a real healing as palmed chicken liver palmed in the healers hand? I have a Friend Claire E. and Claire and her husband Peter (a medical doctor) went to Brazil to meet Joao de Deus (John of God). Since Peter was a medical doctor he was asked to observe the surgeries up close and personal, and he saw John of God cut people open without anisthetic (SP). the incisions did not hardly bleed, and Jogn of God prodeeded to remove tumors weighing several pounds, and Peter was looking for fraud, and saw none. when they returned home Peter said "I don't know what to believe any more" I wish these skeptics would go there and observe THAT healer! In the Bill Moyers series about healing in China; they record a MD who is doing brain surgery on a woman who is awake and talking whle the MD is working on different areas of this woman's brain. I wish the debunkers would watch that video then speak to the patient, MD, and Qigong master who blocked the flow of ch'i so the MD could cut the top of thay woman's skull off, then continued to block the flow of ch'i so the patient was not unconscious from the pain. the MD was literaly talking to the patient while he operated on her ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 02:07 AM Reiki is currently in use as a complementary therapy at the Tucson Medical Center in Arizona, the Portsmouth Regional Hospital in New Hampshire, and at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital in New York. The Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania (HUP) Medical School, Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Marian General Hospital, and the California Pacific Medical Center all offer Reiki to their patients. In Cleveland, hospitals are considering setting up a Reiki clinic. In I wish someone would introduce them to HUNA. HUNA blows Reiki and most of the other forms of energy work out of the water! ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Two_bears Date: 05 Sep 04 - 02:02 AM I know he would not like to hear this, but it's still true: James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism, and a gigantic surge toward the New Age that still rages unabated. Randi is nOT a honest skeptic. He is a debunker, and would not accept it if he saw someone levitate for real (just because he could do it via illusion). ANL - 2B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 08:25 PM Wolfgang, I'm glad you found something to interest you in the Reiki material. I am not at all surprised that you found that the study cited has now been debunked. And I'm sure that if ever you might desire to, you (and only you) are more than capable of searching out any "empirical evidence" you require. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 04 - 07:35 PM Not too many discussing tha article as Mack has already noticed. Some even try to prove the author's point by playing the insulting skeptic and the ignorant believer (skeptic, 02 Sep 04 - 10:28 AM). it is a "skeptic" movement website for debunking New Age beliefs, but not conventional religious beliefs. (02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM ) 02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM , you're completely uninformed. Two recent issues of that magazine have been dedicated to discussing science and traditional religions. And you don't seem to realise what they consider debatable and what not. The line is whether they deal with statements of fact or statements of belief and nothing else. They have often attacked factual statements of traditional religions about evolution, appartions of the madonna and cosmology. If its about (transcendent or whatever) beliefs it's off limits for them, even if this only may be a small cult, if it's about statements of facts it is open season whoever has said that. To make it clear in an example: If the catholic church says that in the transsubstatiation procedure the wine becomes the blood of Jesus in a metaphorical sense, it's none of their business. If a catholic priest says that in his church the wine has actually turned into blood in a physical sense, they don't shirk to act. Daylia, at your first post I have yawned, because it was a repetition of anecdotal evidence, nothing new or interesting. But I was pleased to see in a later post a link to empirical research. That's what I want and I applaud you for that. I went to that link and looked for a review or metaanalysis article. I found REIKI—REVIEW OF A BIOFIELD THERAPY HISTORY, THEORY, PRACTICE, AND RESEARCH on the site you had linked to and I started to read Two things are met my eye at the first reading: (1) The good and strong effect are nearly exclusively on pain perception measured with a subjective variable. I've told it a few times here, that is exactly the combination for which the placebo effect is maximal. Subjective pain perception can be influenced by many methods in suggestible people (long know for instance in hypnosis reasearch). For these people, this is of course preferable to medication for these side effects are smaller than with pain killers. (2) Most articles cited are in lesss known journals and are case reports or anectodal articles. Only a minority is about placebo control research with random assignement. There was one thing that immediately made me suspicious. Nearly all of the well controlled experimentation came from one single author, namely D. Wirth. (look at the table on the last page) Well, I'm like an old detective, sometimes I get suspicious without at first being able to tell exactly why. That is my intuition (which is nothing else but difficult to verbalise knowledge), but you should not rely upon someone else's intuition. I knew I had heard or read that name recently and I did a bit of follow up work: Doctor Daniel Wirth has no medical degree, he is doctor of parapsychology. Most of his many articles (which look good at the first glance) come from the Healing Sciences Research International with no university affiliation. Another researcher who didn't trust those good looking papers of Wirth tried to communicate but got not response. He then tried to communicate with co-authors and found that some even did not know they were mentioned as coauthors. Wirth, who also sometimes used a wrong name to get a passport, has been involved in several fraud cases, has been charged with transporting stolen money and with making fals statements at court. Insurance fraud can be added to that list. In May, 2004, when the trial United States vs Wirth & Howard (an accomplice) was about to begin, they pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and bank fraud. This month, the verdict is expected and that guy will go to jail. This is the same Daniel Wirth who has left in his trail dozens of articles about the effect of alternative treatments and prayer. Some better journals that had accepted his articles have removed his articles from their websites. The London Observer had an article about him in May, this year: Exposed: conman's role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle'. This man is responsible for all or nearly all of the (at the first glance) well controlled studies about Reiki etc. My guess is that this is one of the cases where someone with an agenda (easy money in the alternative health scene) has published data he never had sampled. Anyway, data from this source are not believable any more, and I must say that I am surprised a Reiki site you have linked to still has an article praising Dr. Wirth without any qualifications. Don't they read that the only source with controlled Reiki reserarch has been discredited or don't they care. At least, I'd loved to have read a word of warnign. But that fits well in the picture I see too often: articles that have long been thoroughly discreditied and debunked are still cited as evidence on believers' sites. I get the impression that for them the results of a study is more important than the quality. But, Daylia, go on please giving me access to empirical research. Don't tell stories that cannot be checked for accuracy, give me something else to work on. Articles and empirical research, that my beef. Give me more of that. The first site, I'm (not) sorry to say, is not very convincing for the reasons told here. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:16 PM Daylia: Re the quote from Gautama, That's a basic part of the scientific method. It's part of the reason why students do the same experiments over and over. Interesting observation, mack! I didn't learn it in science class, but in a book by Ted Andrews called Psychic Protection. Now, isn't this a wonderful illustration of the "chasm" (???) between Science and the "New Age"! Thanks for the insight, daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:04 PM I posted the information above for two reasons: 1) to help provide readers with accurate scientific and first-hand information about so-called "New Age" spiritual/energetic healing methods, and 2) to help illustrate that the only "chasm" which exists between Science and the so-called "New Age" is the one which may (or may not) exist in the mind of the perceiver. Yes, I do love personally experiencing and observing the benefits in others of studying, practicing and teaching techniques like Reiki and Huna. Doing something for love is, I suppose, in some ways self-serving (because it feels so good!), but I am honestly not trying to "sell" anyone anything here. If readers with no first-hand experience of these techniques choose not to believe or accept anything I've posted here as truth, that's not only their privilege but it's perfectly understandable. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:46 AM Note to self: proof read proof read proof read. Paradigm is the correct spelling of that word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:46 AM HuwG: Thank you for a useful addition to this. A necessary point, well made. Daylia: Re the quote from Gautama, That's a basic part of the scientific method. It's part of the reason why students do the same experiments over and over. Herbal remedies have been mentioned a couple of times. The practice is not dead. Check "ethnopharmacology". The advantage of chemically prepared drugs over herbs is that one knows exactly how much of the active ingredient is included. That, and the assurance that other, potentially dangerous substances are absent. Daylia keeps harping on the profit motive and profiteering. It is a valid issue. And it will remain one unless society changes enough to make it impossible. That's her responsibility. And mine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Clinton Hammond Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:44 AM "Glad Han Solo's empirical data about the extent of the universe" Heh... I quote it, because it best sums up my experience and opinions as well... and also, it's from a cool movie and someone might get a little giggle outa the quote... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 04 Sep 04 - 11:34 AM HuwG, you described the position well from the Geology standpoint. Your observation of However, members of any "establishment" can lapse into an exclusive, know-it-all attitude. . . is a the point at which paradeigm shifts happen, when the older ideas in science become overburdoned with their own importance and not responsive to the newer research. They get left behind. There is a role there where the "skeptic" becomes the new mainstream practitioner. Skeptic is too general a term to consistently apply to one particular type of position (i.e., conservative vs. liberal, though after enough repetition, who knows--other words have lost their original or primary meanings through repeated popular usage). I actually didn't associate daylia with snake oil salesman. I merely illustrated the positions occupied on a sliding scale that runs from scholarship to annecdote in the field of topical discourse. There will always be some overlap, but there are points where it is a higher density of one or the other. "Sales pitch" should of course not be taken literally--many people "sell" ideas in encounters in which no $$$$ will ever be exchanged. That doesn't make it any less of a "selling" situation. HuwG, you might enjoy visiting a page that links to the work of Chris Scotese at the U. of Texas Arlington, who is doing some interesting work in illustrating the motion of plate tectonics. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 04 - 10:07 AM HuwG, my acupuncturist is going to enjoy that one! Thanks, also, for your well-put thoughts on this. It is appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 07:25 AM So, "skeptics" are useful, either in challenging the facile assumptions of an over-comfortable and smug establishment, or in demanding that the outrageous claims of the travelling snake-oil salesman be subject to the same tests as the doctrines of established medicine. I don't deny that skeptics can be the most awful self-satisfied parasites or charlatans themselves. Well said, HuwG -- thank you very much for your input. I'm not sure about this part why a man in your position should require a licence to catch fish in Kowloon harbour ?" but I will say this; I am looking forward very much to the day when there is greater scientific understanding of traditional healing methods like Reiki and Huna, in the best interests of the public. There is SO much charlatanism out there that can be VERY dangerous for newbies to energy work. I was one of those wide-eyed newbies a few years ago, and I DO know exactly what I'm talking about! The following may prove helpful to anyone considering embarking on an exploration of energetic healing or any "new-age" psychic/occult/spiritual tradition: Teachings of Gautama Buddha Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe anything because it is rumoured and spoken of by many; do not believe merely because the written statements of some old sage are produced; do not believe in that as a truth to which you have become attached by habit; do not believe merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. If a so-called healer's personal health or lifestyle seems chaotic (ie substance abuse, problematic relationships, legal problems etc); if they seem to be lacking for students who stay with them for any length of time OR if the students they do have appear cowed, awed, or intimidated by their presence; if they offer you "guarantees" of any kind; charge you more than $30/half hour for a healing session; insist you to come back frequently (ie weekly or even monthy)sessions; tell you that you must rely on "spirit" or "your guides" (?) if you question a teaching or technique that conflicts with your common sense; if they seem more interested in listening to themselves talk than listening to you; if they advise you even ONCE to stop taking prescriptions or otherwise go against your doctor's advice - then RUN, don't walk to the nearest exit and report them to your local authorities. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: HuwG Date: 04 Sep 04 - 06:41 AM If I might interject an observation from Geology, a field in which I used to work many years ago. In Geology, the Creationists are the main "skeptics", when it comes to the generally accepted theories of Plate Tectonics, and of the age and method of creation of the Earth. If one can refrain from being annoyed by their smug attitude, i.e. "We have discovered this lacuna or inconsistency in such and such a theory, therefore science is a self-serving and fraudulent establishment and we Creationists are correct in this debate and any others we might have in this field, and also the ones who will go to Heaven", it has to be admitted that skeptics are useful. They don't have to propound anything of their own in order to be useful. A theory might have gaps or fuzzy areas. It is not good enough to leave it at that. The holes have to be filled, by better observation, or more careful thought on the subject, or junking the theory and coming up with a better one. For example, it was only in the last five or six years that a gap in the Plate Tectonic theory was filled when metallugists and material scientists brought their minds to bear on the problem. I have to admit that certain "establishments" do have their faults. By "establishment", I mean mainstream spokesmen or pundits on a subject, or members of bodies such as the British Medical Association, which regulates Doctors in Britain. These bodies are vitally necessary. I would definitely not want some enthusiastic amateur to represent me in court should I ever be accused of anything; I would much prefer someone who is proved by membership of the Law Society to have the intellectual and practical qualifications to do so effectively. However, members of any "establishment" can lapse into an exclusive, know-it-all attitude. (An example here; the mother of a woman I know went to hospital after suffering chest pains. Mother and daughter were desperately worried that it might be a heart attack. Man in white coat appears, and says, "ECG indicates a myocardial infarct". Daughter says, "Is that a heart attack ?" "It's a my-o-card-ial in-farct", says the white-coated one, as if to a five-year-old.) And, establishments have been proved to be wrong in the past; there is a built-in inertia, or perhaps resistance to changing accepted dogma in the face of uncomfortable facts. So, "skeptics" are useful, either in challenging the facile assumptions of an over-comfortable and smug establishment, or in demanding that the outrageous claims of the travelling snake-oil salesman be subject to the same tests as the doctrines of established medicine. I don't deny that skeptics can be the most awful self-satisfied parasites or charlatans themselves. Incidentally, I wouldn't dream of putting Daylia in the class of snake-oil salesmen, nor would I accuse Mack/Misophist, to take the opposite point in this debate, of self-satisfaction. This has been the most politely and precisely conducted debate I have seen between established and alternative science. However, I will terminate with an urban myth which indicates the potential hazards of accepting alternative science at face value. A Chinese man on a visit to Britain begins suffering back pains, which have occasionally plagued him. Back in Hong Kong, a visit to an acupuncturist invariably gives relief. So, he goes to a London acupuncturist which he finds in the telephone directory. The practice is obviously doing well. The acupuncturist himself is sleek and well-fed and on the wall of his office he has an impressive-looking diploma, written in Chinese. The Chinese visitor looks at this and then says, "Will you tell me please, why a man in your position should require a licence to catch fish in Kowloon harbour ?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 06:19 AM Re this perceived "chasm" - it exists only in the minds of 2 types of people: 1) those who don't care to venture into unknown territory, preferring instead to sit on their safe and familiar fences reading, whining, babbling and arguing about things they know absolutely nothing about, and 2) those who attempt to create, propogate, and push everyone around them into their perceived "chasms", because they see big BIG $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at the bottom of them. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 04 Sep 04 - 05:47 AM See what I mean? It's a sales pitch calculated to challenge a lot of people who are uncertain: "Try it, it'll change your life. Forget your common sense, what do these eggheads know?" Sales pitch?!? I stated above, very clearly that I teach these techniques and do energetic healing work absolutely free of charge. I practice Huna every day of my life because I love it. It has proven to be of great benefit to my health and happiness, my quality of life and that of everyone around me. And it works! - depending, as I've said before, on the emotional/mental state of the recipient. Or I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time on it! There are very few scientific studies finished as yet, certainly not enough to assuage the doubts of those who could be convinced by such things, "eggheads" or no. Even the studies that ARE available are questionable - as are all other scientific studies - because the intents and biases of those funding and carrying out any study investigation are MOST important variables that are often hidden from public view. For people like me, even a hundred such studies could never be as convincing as ONE first-hand experience with energy work. And it's not at all that I "prefer" anecdotal evidence - the fact is that anecdotal evidence is the only kind readily available about energetic healing at the present time. But my own first-hand physical experiences? They are not at all "anecdotal" to me (of course) - they worth more to me than a century's worth of other people's stories and scientific reports. And that is EXACTLY as it should be, for my own health, safety and well-being. Sorry folks, but you can't learn how to swim, experience what swimming is all about and in so doing, find out if swimming is the work-out that suits you best by reading scientific studies about swimming. Even if you found and read hundreds of such studies, AND someone you trust took the time to explain to you in minute detail what it feels like, how to move your body in the water etc - all that information would be next to meaningless unless you finally decided to jump into that pool and try it yourself. THis is only common sense, too. It's the same with Huna. That first plunge into unknown territory may feel risky, but it's WELL worth a bit of courage and effort. You just might find something of great benefit that you can use and enjoy for the rest of your life. You've got nothing to lose except your pains and your skepticisms, and it won't cost you a dime. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:58 AM I agree strongly with Mack/Misophist. As Carl Sagan commented, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. So much New Age stuff is simply anecdotal - 'I know someone who had 28 cancer patients recover after they were sprinkled with water from a holy Celtic well' - that kind of thing, which one always seems to encounter at parties. If one gives a snort of disbelief then immediately one is labelled as narrow-minded, arrogant or even racist (if the anecdote involved the alleged remarkable powers of some non-white group). I am sick and tired of it, and find the scepticism I am reading here a breath of fresh air. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:43 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 04 - 12:35 AM Understanding the differences between ancient metaphysical principles and trendy "new age" fads would go a long way in bridging any chasms. If the author of the article Wolfgang linked to really wants to bridge the chasm she'd do well to write shorter, less convoluted articles with more practical suggestions rather than going on and on and on about herself and her angst. While she's been busy with her identity crisis, real people, from both *sides* have been working together at such places as the John Templeton Foundation. There is also a long tradition of studying the scientific application of metaphysical laws through certain traditional organisations, from ancient times to the present. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Sep 04 - 10:37 PM See what I mean? It's a sales pitch calculated to challenge a lot of people who are uncertain: "Try it, it'll change your life. Forget your common sense, what do these eggheads know?" "Skeptics," as the article calls those with critical thinking skills who have evaluated the pressure behind the pitch, are comfortable in resisting it. Once you're into the touchy-feely stuff, you're an easy mark for manipulation. You're in for the "cold reading" that is mentioned in the article. She also says, after discussing her decision to exit the New Age field:
The trouble with these shouting matches is that they draw hard and fast lines. I'm not willing to speculate or enlarge on any of the uncharted gray-area subjects that interest me and in which I have personal experience, when someone is very likely going to come along and appropriate it as something that is part of their LaLa Land stuff.
I think she has pegged it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 03 Sep 04 - 09:44 PM I understand why my "sweeping anecdotes" (that must mean the Reiki treatment I described in my first post?) convince no one. All the second-hand opinions, reports and "empirical studies" in the world could not possibly have convinced me that techniques like Reiki or Huna work, or even that such as thing as mana (life-force energy) exists unless I'd had my debut - meaning at least one first-hand physical experience with it! (I'd tell you how that happened, but I'd rather not "sweep" anyone away again) Others, perhaps not caring for the bother and risk of a first-hand experience (one which just might change their understanding of themselves, their lives and their world FOREVER no less! shudder shudder) are content to sit on the sidelines observing, analysing, demanding someone or something else feed them "proof" which they may or may not deem "acceptable" - and then systematically rejecting any "proofs" offered till the cows come home. Well, that's fine too. Certain people, or personality types do respond quickly and easily to traditional spiritual/energetic healing methods like Reiki and Huna, while others do not. I know which group I belong to. Do you? daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Sep 04 - 06:32 PM Mack, you illustrate the two positions very clearly. There are people who have been for years laboring to bring the spiritual and the scientific-secular closer together, particularly when it comes to environmental issues. For one thing, as you point out, the Story is a major method of conveying information in all cultures, and scientists haven't generally felt it possible to reduce their work into story form, or to break it into manageable chapters. This is why the the religious "opiate of the masses" is successful--it uses storytelling as its major tool and stories break down into nice sound bites, as it were. At the same time, philosophers recognize that when one goes back to the earliest roots of many religions, one finds "early science"--environmental components that teach how to live in a place. This means in a manner that, while I hate to use the hackneyed term "balance," doesn't strip the environmental resources from a place (over use the water, over hunt the game, etc.) This goes back to the autochthonous nature of religions--that pesky term that Guest finds too ponderous--teaching a way to live on a particular chunk of real estate that has specific types of soil, amounts of water, types of wildlife, etc. Philosophers look at religious creation and allegorical didactic stories as mythic material meant to teach a culture about itself and as a concerted way to manage the behavior of the members of that culture who share the same beliefs. Within those cultures, the storytellers were priviledged figures who both taught and entertained. This is a crucial factor in getting your larger points across to a lot of people. A particular example of this philosphical approach to religion as a way to teach good science and environmental attitudes is to resurect those old and often forgotten environmental storied bits of established religions. There is no way to "create a new myth"--that idea flies in the face of the very term "myth." When you can see 'the man behind the curtain' the magic doesn't work. You need the authorless collective unconscious behind the stories to make them work today--in other words, the tools needed to merge the early science with modern science are still there, the older bits of modern religions, waiting to be revived by today's theologians. This approach is illustrated by Max Oelschlaeger in his book Caring for Creation: An Ecumenical Approach to the Environmental Crisis. That last paragraph of McLaren's article that so confused Guest gets at the heart of what you said and what I'm saying. Read it again:
This is why daylia and I are always at loggerheads on these topics. I refuse to accept her sweeping annecdotes without credible evidence and her response is to call names and dismiss the scholarly approach to any given question being discussed as too intellectually rarified. I doubt Max Oelschlaeger is interested in joining Mudcat to mediate, so list members will no doubt continue to duke it out. But Wolfgang brought a very good article to our attention when he started this thread. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: shepherdlass Date: 03 Sep 04 - 05:21 PM No axe to grind for either side of this argument. Surely there's room for complementary use of these techniques - sometimes old remedies, like the bark containing aspirin, turn out to have a rational explanation in the end. But I couldn't help but notice that Clinton Hammond used a quote from "Star Wars" - that fantastically accurate piece of scientific non-fiction!!! - to emphasize his point. Glad Han Solo's empirical data about the extent of the universe is given credence over and above the "quacks". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 03 Sep 04 - 04:09 PM The two posts above, from Wolfgang and Daylia, demonstrate a major rift between the scientific and New Age communities. The New Age accepts and often seems to prefer anecdotal evidence. A trained scientist may find it interesting but won't accept it as proof or even evidence, necessarily. Why? Because the better the story, the more heavily filtered it is. Affected by the tellers cultural bias, expectations, and pleasure that the thing worked (One finds relatively few negative reports.) The better the story is, the more convincing it is at an emotional level. It doesn't matter that the condition being treated may have been mis-diagnosed, may have gone into normal remission, or may actually remain the same even though the patient feels better. A trained scientist, on the other hand, will try very hard to eliminate all personal, psychological elements from an experiment/test. So the New Ager is often resentful when the scientist rejects his 'proof' and the scientist disdainful when the New Ager fails to understand his. You know which side I'm on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 03 Sep 04 - 09:26 AM Well, Wolfgang, were it not for those same old anecdotal experiences, I would have had no reason or motivation to explore the field of energy work at all. I do apologize for having bored you. ANd I do know that should you ever decide to check out a therapy like Reiki or Huna first-hand, your opinion of it would likely undergo quite a dramatic change. Until then though, all you are really going on is second-hand, second-rate opinions and/or the usual questionable and ever-changing scientific (or pseudo-scientific) "evidence". If this is all that's required for you to form an opinion you're satisfied with, great. But I'm different. I've learned to trust my own first-hand experience - even my own 'hunches" and intuitions - far more than anything I encounter from an outside source, no matter how credible or "acceptable" that source may be. Why? Because failing to trust my own direct experiences, hunches and intuitions; assuming that anyone else - scientist, "healer" or otherwise - might know better than I do what is best for me -- these are EXACTLY the attitudes that got me into such trouble when I first started exploring the more subtle realms of life. That was a VERY expensive lesson, and I am highly unlikely to ever forget it. I'm glad you found something of value in the Reiki article. And please don't kid yourself - if you were ever hospitalized or in chronic pain, you just might find something of great value in a Reiki treatment, should the nurse at your bedside be properly trained (and permitted) to offer you one. Properly administered for relief of pain and anxiety, Reiki is more effective, far safer for the human body / psyche and much cheaper than any drug. Drugs work like a sledgehammer - they may (or may not) hit the target (ie have the desired effect) - but the umpteen other most distressing side effects they inevitably trigger make therapies like Reiki a most desirable alternative. Only problem with Reiki is that it's a completely natural technique that anyone can learn. It does not require expensive equipment or years of (also highly expensive) university training. Pharmaceutical companies and Western medical professionals make no profit on it. In fact, the use of techniques like Reiki cuts into that corner of the market quite considerably - and that's what all the bally-hoo disguised as "scientific skepticism" is all about, imo. IT's all about what's best for the wealthy and influential powers-that-be in the scientific /pharmaceutical / medical community -- NOT what's in the best interests of the public. IMHO. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Wolfgang Date: 03 Sep 04 - 08:37 AM Mack, you've described nicely in one post my surprise about many of the reactions here. This article is not about right and wrong but about the interaction between two cultures (naming one for short 'New age' is as good or as bad as naming the other 'skeptics'). I have read it as blaming both for what goes wrong in the interaction and for not listening closely to what the other culture wants to say. The main issue is what each one (and society) can lose by failing to listen with the intention to understand. GUEST, Skeptic, and 02 Sep 04 - 10:28 AM have tried to illustrate her point: bashing and insult is a 'good' start to further mutual understanding. The readers' reaction in the Skeptical Inquirer (more than to any other article this year) has been very different I'm glad to say. Most letters said something like how right she is about saying that the skeptics' ability to communicate their worries is mostly bad. The banner at the top of the page with the photo of the "Skeptical Enquirer" magazine cover tells me it is a "skeptic" movement website for debunking New Age beliefs, but not conventional religious beliefs. (02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM ) 02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM, you're not informed (as has been posted already). Two recent issues have been on science and traditional religion (with widely varying opinions, for there is no party line). Claims of the paranormal (as long as they are testable) are fair game for them whether that is claims about Lourdes, religious predictions of the end of the world, sightings of the Madonna, right wing evangelists about evolution, or any claim from a non mainstream religion. Faith statements that are not testable are off limits for them, whether that is a big church or a small (pagan, for instance) movement. Exoprcism to has been a focus of critique. The line is here: If, for instance the Catholic church says that in the transsubstantiation the wine becomes the blood of Jesus in a metaphorical sense that's none of their business to criticise or make fun of that belief. If a village priest would claim that the wine physically becomes blood than this would be a case for CSICOP. Daylia, your first post was what makes me yawn: claims and stories, like any salesman has them a dozen. Your link, however, in a later post, that was to my taste. From that link I could follow to other links about effectiveness and reviews about Reiki (and similar techniques). I see two main points after perusing the empirical literature: (1) The main effect claimed is on pain with subjective dependent measures. That's what I can believe, for exactly under these conditions the placebo effect is largest. A very quick relief of subjective pain can be reached with a lot of methods in many conditions. If that works it is better than pain killers, for it has fewer side effects. It seems to work better with persons with a high suggestibility (which, alas, makes it less useful for me). (2) Most of the studies listed are case reports. Controlled studies with random assignement and placebo groups are very few (and in the Reiki case, seem to come mostly from one single researcher; that always raises an alarm for me). A review article linked is summarised as follows: 13 studies showed a positive effect, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect. The authors identified a number of limitations in studies...including underpowered studies and inadequate randomization resulting in non-homogeneous study groups. The authors concluded that further study of (several different, among them Reiki) interventions is merited. That's what I feed from and I must say that at this moment I am not overwehelmed yet. Keep up using this type of arguments. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 03 Sep 04 - 08:02 AM Like Karla McLean, I too have encountered more "new-age" charlatans, bogus theories, rip-off artists, psychic robbers and truly dangerous psychopathic ego-driven so-called "healers" than I can count over the last decade or so. In my exploration of energy work I've been lied to, scammed, robbed, sickened and attacked via various mysterious "magickal" and "shamanic" methods almost to the point of no return - and as I recovered from all those terrifying and painful experiences, I learned. I learned what works and what doesn't, what's real and what's not, who to trust and who to stay away from. And of course I have encountered the skeptics as well, the ones who ridicule and debunk any approach or theory except those currently deemed "acceptable" by the scientific community. In fact, the most formidable skeptic I've ever encountered is the one between my own two ears! But unlike Karla McLean, I see no reason to amplify the differences between the two groups in my own mind, to call these differences a "war" between "two cultures". These groups spring from and express exactly the same culture - and that is C20 Western culture. And it's not a "war" imo, but simply a difference of terminology, approach, experience and opinion. There are plenty of so-called "new-age" healers and authors who do bridge this perceived "chasm" quite successfully. Ted Andrews and Gregg Braden are the first that come to mind. Karla's problem reminds me of a rainbow. A rainbow could be perceieved as bands of VERY different colored light presented side by side, in harmony, to form a unified whole - or it could be perceieved as those same bands of very different colored light side by side in raging conflict, forced by the uncaring hand of nature to present together as a unified whole. Now, what's the most common motivation for starting or engaging in a "war"? Money, and territory. I bet Karla is hoping to capitalize LARGE on her new book, her perceived "war". But she'll have to make her fortune without my help. I found nothing new or useful in her article - just the same old boring "poor me" whining and finger-pointing. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 03 Sep 04 - 01:01 AM Mack, thanks for your remarks. Guest, that article Wolfgang linked to was well-considered and deftly written. If the weight of the rhetoric here has become too heavy for you, you have only yourself to blame. You started using keywords that fit into scholarly discourse, leading me to believe that you spoke the language. It felt good to expand on the subject that was interestingly nuanced up to that point. Silly me, thinking you were actually particiapting in the discussion instead of blowing smoke. If you were hoping no one would call your bluff, you fooled yourself. Enough said. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 02 Sep 04 - 10:17 PM Look at the article again, Guest. "Bridging the chasm" is a goal, not a claim. Should she begin to succeed, I suppose you will be there. To pull it down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 08:41 PM You know SRS, you don't need to use fancy words and postmodern MA academic-speak language to communicate with me. I find it off-putting, condescending, and dilettantish. I also think you WERE acting as an apologist for native misogyny and sexism when you commented glibly in response to the examples I gave "No culture is perfect, they all have things that others find distasteful or immoral." and followed it up with "I would respond to the charge regarding the abandoned elderly women that in the New World the poor elderly fall through the economic cracks throughout nations, not just in Indian cultures or on reservations." Well SRS, what I had said about misogyny and sexism in native communities didn't require a response from you, and especially not a response where you seemingly imply that misogyny and sexism aren't even on the radar because "other cultures" have those problems too. All you are doing is stating the obvious, without ever engaging with points raised. That is the sort of superficiality that is off-putting to me. But apparently you've made a fan of mack. I also disagree about the writer in the article linked to--I don't find her article to be particularly interesting, much less revelatory, and I certainly don't find it to be compelling writing. And it certainly doesn't live up to the suggestion of "Bridging the chasm". Widening the rift is what it seems intended to do, IMO. Each to their own on that score. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 02 Sep 04 - 07:56 PM A. Sceptical Inquirer does do articles on religious topics, ie. the Shroud of Turin, miraculous re-liquifying blood of some saints, that sort of thing. Since their articles are often in response to something, New Age topics are covered more often because they arise more frequently. B. Guest has demanded names and dates, facts and figures. Frankly, I decline to do 2 - 4 hours of research that, judging from Guest's tone, will be rejected out of hand. C. Although I sometimes disagree with SRS, this time the nail was hit squarely. And hard. D. Guest ought to address the SRS with a little more care. That knife is sharp. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Sep 04 - 06:32 PM Guest, I use the words that fit the ideas I'm trying to express. "Authochthonous" implies more than just "indigenous" or "native." In this case, it implies the special relationship between the beliefs and the particular land in which they were formed. If you had to work a little to get that meaning, sobeit. Yes, I grew up around and have Indians in the family. (There are also northern European, Philippino/Chinese, Turkish, Japanese, and Hispanic members of my family.) I told you that I was giving you the short version of things from a scholarly view, and even then, it was a hefty post. Don't presume that a scholarly view of the world precludes a workaday view of the world. "Industrial religions" is a shorthand term to refer to the big three "religions" that are far more than just religions--they're a compound of spiritual dogma, economic policy and scientific discourse. I said nothing about NA hegemony or any pan-Indian religious beliefs that you call a "Native American religious amalgam of religious beliefs". You apparently live at the center of your world, where you bring your beliefs and attitudes to words written by others. I made no apologies for anyone's cultural traditions, simply pointed out that you are making a mistake by assuming that these things occur in one place only, or that Indians are a special kind of victim. That kind of thinking in and of itself is victimizing. Guest, you were doing okay for a while. Sorry I lost you--I thought your close reading and critical thinking skills were sharper than they apparently are. You have a chip on your shoulder and as you read my remarks made a number of incorrect assumptions. Don't assume that if someone chooses to study a culture that by default they are outside of it, have no knowledge of it, or are so far removed as to make it into a museum piece. The last quote that I ran was aimed at others, who probably won't get it anyway. It was in the context of our discussion, but evidently beyond your ken. Sorry I overestimated your abilities. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 05:41 PM SRS, no disrespect intended, but: What the hell is an "industrial" religion? Why do you use big, rarified words like "autochthonous" when everyday, commonly understood words like "native" or "indigenous" will do? And thirdly, you may have a degree in American Indian literature, but you don't seem to have much experience of American Indian cultures. That is a polite way of saying, you seem to have acquired an education without actually knowing too many Indians. You seem much too quick to defend the NA hegemonic culture, when there isn't one. Neither is their a "Native American religious amalgam of religious beliefs". At least, not among any of the American Indians I know, who argue incessantly about their religious differences with one another as we Eur Ams argue ours. Or as a friend of mine likes to say "we aren't all Sun Dancers, you know". Just like in any other grouping of people from different cultures, there are dominant and less dominant cultures. I live at the epicenter of the tensions between Northern Plains and Woodland tribes. Their cultural differences are very real, and their racial experiences of the US virtually identical. They struggle with the same gender, class, and race dynamics that the dominant Eur Am cultures grapple with, which is why I don't feel a need to apologize for, or attempt to paper over the failings of their culture's traditions anymore than I would my own. They are plenty capable of defending themselves, if they choose to do so. I really want to see their cultures survive, and as long as well meaning academic types keep acting as apologists for them, which is what I think you are doing here, there will be more cultural loss, not less. If the native cultures are going to survive, they are going to do so by being scrappy and being a part of contemporary dialogues and debates of the issues that matter most to most people. Those issues certainly include sexism. Some of the most interesting discussions I've ever had about Rousseauian romanticizing have been with Native intellectuals who haven't been college educated, and never heard of the guy. But they understand the concept of Romantic nationalism just fine. I know may be a bit of a leap for a lot of people that Native people actually have intellectual traditions that extend further back than Vine Deloria, but there you have it. And BTW, I never claimed that Native religious traditions had to be, or should remain static. You are the one who brought up the Lynn Andrews thing. That raises the issue of "reinvention" for discussion. There are philosophical differences all over the map in Indian country on this very issue--and when I say Indian country, I mean both the res and urban Indian country. But I wouldn't say it is much of a big deal anywhere in Indian country, in my experience. Although I should qualify where I'm coming from regarding Native Americans: my experience with American Indian people is living and working with them, not studying them. Perhaps that accounts for the differences between your views and mine. Finally, the last quote you gave for the article doesn't make sense to me. Either you have quoted it far enough out of context, or the writer just isn't very good at writing with enough clarity to make herself understood. But if you are getting at the same sort of thing that I'm guessing Wolfgang was trying to get at, I'm not buying into that sort of an oppositional set up of New Age vs "skeptic" debate over who is right vs who is wrong. That would be a truly mindless waste of time. I'm not certain that is what you are getting at, but because you came in and started speaking in post-modernspeak tongues, it is hard to know what exactly it is you are truly going on about here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Sep 04 - 04:39 PM Guest, interesting discussion (though there are several guests here, so you'll have to sort yourselves out with that moniker).
As with anything, one needs to be well informed, and a critical thinker. That includes being well informed about the "skeptic" movement and it's agenda. The exposure to Postmodernism (also refered to as Deconstruction, a term McLaren used when refering to her evolution away from her former career) is a good way to compare the worlds. In my academic "indoctrination" as you call it (you were correct--two M.A.s), I covered environmental philosophy and American Indian literature. There are lots of "aha! moments when reading theory. Learn enough about Semiotics (signs/signifiers) so when you read multiple works within a given field the philosophy contained within the use of the language in those stories and poems and ethnographic materials begins to gel. You learn to look at the material and find clues to the meanings intended by the person who is speaking English, whether as a native speaker, as a second language, or as a translation (translations are by far the trickiest to work with). Thus, collections of American Indian stories with titles like Reinventing the Enemies' Language make perfect sense. The language is used in such a way that the EurAmerican is not at the center of the story, and what they conceive of as "universal" understandings are no longer valid. It's a real eye-opener for some, a real turn-off for others.
There is a tremendous amount of misogyny and sexism in traditional cultures. I don't want to see that institutionalized in the name of false sanctity towards cultural traditions, which deserve to be left behind as relics of a superstititious past. The contemporary native religious practices are largely a reinvention, and that movement is wholly dominated by powerful male members of the communities who wish to glamorize a mythic warrior culture which never existed in the ways they claim they did. I don't support that. No culture is perfect, they all have things that others find distasteful or immoral. I would respond to the charge regarding the abandoned elderly women that in the New World the poor elderly fall through the economic cracks throughout nations, not just in Indian cultures or on reservations. Not just women, not just Indians. With colonization came much of the economic chaos we see today; prior to the European arrival there were entirely different ways of reckoning were in effect. No value judgement here, just the simple observation that things were different. As to debunking New Age and/or debunking modern religion. This could go on for many pages, and has, in many scholarly venues. I'll try to keep it brief. It is my opinion that humans have created their gods in various images, and their religions take on practices according to where they live. Some religions have grown and expanded well beyond their borders, and have lost touch with the native earth that gave rise to them. That the three big industrial religions were spawned in the deserts of the Middle East and now are entwined with Science and Economics means that they've moved far beyond the function of many autochthonous religions: a simple method of survivial that includes an origin story and includes many practices and rituals that, if successful, keep people more or less in a cyclical balance in the land where they live. When those local cultures and their spiritual practices go out of control to such an extent that their lives on the land become toxic (for example--Easter Island; some of the early Central American nation-states; probably some early European cultures; and quite possibly the Anasazi, in the American Southwest ca. 1300) then the cultures fail and vanish, and individuals reappear elsewhere to try something new. The big three are much more than a way to live. They're a big power brokerage, where (mostly) white men control many people and get very rich in the process. Along the way there are people in it for good works, and there is enough of a balance between the rich and powerful and the altruistic that a lot of people never quite catch on to what is going on. (Kind of like the Republican party, evidently!) "Reinvention," spiritually or in other ways, is a common practice in all cultures. To expect American Indian cultures to remain static museum pieces is unrealistic. If they had been untampered with for the last 500 years, they still would have changed from what they were in 1492. If Europeans had visited rather than conquered, ideas and practices still would have percolated quickly through the native cultures, and change would have occurred. The syncretism within native cultures is such, and in many ways more powerful than that demonstrated by the European cultures, that what you see today as Native Spirituality is an amalgam of religious beliefs--it's a survival skill. There is simply no way to describe a typcial American Indian today--they live everywhere, do everything. Those who live on reservations have a wide variety of experiences. The snapshot of the poor Indian on the Rez is just that, a snapshot through a keyhole. Just like many people from other cultures, there are some who can't get past the barriers of poor health, poor education, poor representation, and oppressive government and dominant culture practices. In the McLaren article, she makes a point that illustrates precisely the problems we have when butting heads on some of these topics at Mudcat. She writes as a former New Age practicioner, now a scholar learning to understand the nuances of critical thinking:
The "overabundance of credulity" is alive and well in some of these discussions. And we're always going to lock horns about it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 04:01 PM Let us begin the debunking, then Clinton. Let's start with this one, given to us by mack, above: "New Age "medical" therapies often seek validation by inclusion in tax supported plans and institutions. Since these "therapies" are usually unproven or disproven, we see this as a theft of public money and an erosion of what science itself means." My questions to you skeptics: 1. What New Age "medical" therapies do you mean? List them specifically please. Some medical therapies, like massage therapy or music therapy are often labelled New Age out of ignorance. 2. What "tax supported plans and institutions" are you referring to? Name names, be specific. 3. What "public monies" are currently being given to New Age medical therapies? Under what governmental department are our tax dollars being distrubted to these New Age therapies? What Congressional committees and subcommittees are responsible for their oversight? 4. How do New Age "medical" therapies "erosion of what science itself means"? (Editor's Note: I shudder to think this answer may stem from the same sort of "logic" that gay marriage undermines the institution of heterosexual marriage.) You see, none of the above has anything to do with legitimate science, but definitely has a LOT to do with stereotypical, illogical "magical" thinking by so-called skeptics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Clinton Hammond Date: 02 Sep 04 - 03:43 PM The only thing James Randi is guilty of is of being right... "I've flown form one side of this galaxy to the other.. I've seen a LOT of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything make me believe there's one all powerful force controls everything... There's no mystical energy field controls MY destiny... it's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense" -Han Solo- "Talk New Age all you want, it's Old Age gonna get ya in the end." -Garnet Rogers- Keep yer dowsers, and your tarot cards, and your astrology, and your aura reading and your transubstantiation.. cause as far as I'm concerned, it's all a load of cr@p... If it help you get through the day, bully for you... don't expect me to give it a 2nd though... "some people just had it in for healers and people with paranormal gifts." Return to sender... no such beast... Uri Geller was a FAKE! Plain and simple... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 03:15 PM Actually, I'm going to have to take back what I said about you mack. I must have overlooked the post you made with this in it: A. New Age "medical" therapies often seek validation by inclusion in tax supported plans and institutions. Since these "therapies" are usually unproven or disproven, we see this as a theft of public money and an erosion of what science itself means. B. The risk of death or permanent disability from New Age "therapies" is unreasonably high. C. New Age authors constantly seek validity by claiming to be "scientific" and using pseudo-scientific jargon. Opposing this is a simple matter of correcting facts. Oh my god, if that is what you actually believe mack, I'm afraid you and your "skeptic" buddies are much more dangerous than I initially thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM Sue, your stories really get my dander up! Oooo I've run into SO MANY people like that in the "new-age" field .... and I just can't stand it any more than I can stand fundamentalist Christianism! How about telling your neighbour(s) that their preaching, their half-baked opinions and their unsolicited advice is being duly ignored, not only because it is both ignorant and inappropriate, but because the Universe also gives them exactly what they ask for. And deserve! Then just walk away, and make sure both you and your daughter DO ignore it. daylia PS Practicing HUNA energetic techniques can result in relief or improvement of any condition, including congenital ones. NO guarantees, of course ... but it CAN. Reiki might too, but Reiki IS less effective. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:39 PM You are right mack. I read the article, but with plenty of skepticism. Why the skepticism? The banner at the top of the page with the photo of the "Skeptical Enquirer" magazine cover tells me it is a "skeptic" movement website for debunking New Age beliefs, but not conventional religious beliefs. As I said, I see them as being just as lunatic fringe as much of the New Age stuff. If they were willing to challenge the religious belief systems of orthodox religion as stridently as they do New Age believers (many of whom are deeply religious and continue to practice their conventional religion in addition to believe in some New Age ideas and practices), I might give the article the time of day. As with anything, one needs to be well informed, and a critical thinker. That includes being well informed about the "skeptic" movement and it's agenda. You even mention, mack, that the woman in the article got exactly what she expected for denouncing her former way of life/system of belief. With all the enthusiasm of the newly converted, I'm sure. So why would anyone lend particular credence to this woman's story, when the outcome met her own, and most reasonable thinking peoples' expectations? Of course someone who leaves the fold and then denounces it to those considered to be it's mortal enemies is going to meet with condemnation from those she left behind. Duh, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: Teresa Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:31 PM Guest, thank you for your post of 12-27. I have a friend in that very same situation. Hear hear. I don't see why there has to be a war between science and New Age communities. Each have different ways of arriving at their results. There can be dogmatic scientists, dogmatic New Agers; there can be people in each community who are full of wonder. Two favorite examples in science: Carl Sagan saying something to the effect that "Because you know how a sunset works doesn't make it any less beautiful." Richard Feynman, when he said that it is ok not to know how something works; that is where all the questions come from. :) T |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:28 PM mack, I apologize if I didn't make it clear that my mother's doctor has always prescribed her plenty of opiates, sleeping pills, anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications. More than many health care professionals feel comfortable with, which is why they keep trying to undermine him. As my mother's doctor says about my mother "She is on enough medication nightly to sink a ship". Is he prescribing all these medications because it is good for my mother? No. Is he doing it as a routine matter with his other patients? No. He is doing it, because he is doing his best to help a disabled, obese, elderly woman who suffers from depression, COPD, and neuropathy (related to her disability that has made her wheel chair and bed bound for the past 5 years), and has been institutionalized in a nursing home for 5 years, to sleep and be as pain free as possible. The horror stories surrounding the maltreatment of elderly women by the medical establishment are indicative of the type of care either you (if you are a woman) or your mother, aunt, partner, sister, etc will likely receive before they die. Race and class status are also mitigating factors, as daylia points out so succinctly. And mack, I'm not dissing you. I think you are doing a great job in the thread trying to grapple with the thorny issues being raised here. SueB, I used to wonder about that stuff too. But I realize now that there are just as many judgmental people who embrace magical thinking, be it of an organized religious nature, or a New Age one. I've heard organized religion believers say the same sorts of things as you have heard from your acquaintances. Only religious believers tend to put it in terms of you being punished for your sinfulness, slothfulness, whatever. Same diff, IMO. I am on the same page as Daylia for the most part. Energy is energy. The problem stems from the value judgments placed upon the use of energy that are rooted in our cultural belief systems. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:27 PM In rereading this thread, I'm saddened that so few seem to have read the article Wolfgang posted. Here's what it's about: A woman who worked in the New Age 'healing' industry became convinced that the rationalist point of view isn't as perverse and wrong headed as she had thought for so long. At about the same time, she began to lose faith in what she was doing. When she announced this to her community, she lost her livelihood and generated a lot of ill will for herself. This was more or less what she expected. Today she's trying to form some synthesis of New Age spirituality and scientific effectiveness. I have serious doubts about any spirituality, but I don't doubt this woman's sincerity or basic goodness. At least, not very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST,SueB Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:13 PM But that's the thing, we have no real understanding of how the mind works. Medicine talks about the placebo effect, but it's such an intangible. We take for granted the existence of a subconscious mind, but look in the dictionary for a definition of subconscious, and it's pretty darn vague. We don't know what it is, but we accept that it exists, and influences us in ways of which we are not consciously aware. Some people do seem to be always sick, some people don't "give in to illness" - the mind is not separate from the body, and how do you sort it all out? That's why I say it's not one or the other, rational vs irrational as the argument seems to suggest. Then again, I admit to having been slightly offended when years ago my car window was broken and my stereo stolen, and a different neighbor (a woman who spent a great deal of time channeling and doing that writing thing where you are simply the instrument for a higher spirit to speak through) told me that I must have "asked for it" because the universe gives you exactly what you ask for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: *daylia* Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:08 PM Science, economics, politics and health care are intrinsically connected, mack -- quite frequently to the physical and financial detriment of the person needing help. If you'd rather fragment the issue than look at the complete picture, that's your privilege too. daylia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: mack/misophist Date: 02 Sep 04 - 02:00 PM It's unfortunate about GUEST's mother. To set the record straight, however, the failure to perscribe isn't usually the doctor's fault. The government has recently been monitoring the use of opiates. Doctors who "over-perscribe" no matter what the reason have had their licenses threatened. Also, at least one pharmacist was threatened with the loss of his license if he continued to fill a certain doctor's opiate perscriptions. It seems that Daylia is determined to confuse the economics and politics of health care with the practice of science. Her privilege, I guess. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Science and New Age: Bridging the chasm From: GUEST Date: 02 Sep 04 - 01:57 PM SRS, it looks like you have been through the indoctrination system of a post-modern institution of higher learning more recently than I have. ;-) I do share some of beliefs reflected in some of the excellent critical thinking done by some post-modern thinkers. But I also have formed much of my philosophical worldview through my own personal experience far from academia, in the real world. Allow me to situate the context of my personal "real world". My real world is in an area with a fairly sizable Native American population, a fairly sizable immigrant community of Asian Americans and African Americans, including a recent African immigrant community, a burgeoning Latino immigrant community, and a predominantly Eur Am dominated community of about 89%. I work in an urban K-12 public education institution, and live in a working class/poor neighborhood inhabitated predominantly by the minority communities on the fringes of the considerably wealthier Eur Am neighborhoods surrounding us (because it is the only place I can AFFORD to live, working as an urban educator in an area with incredibly over-inflated housing values and costs). I am Eur Am. As to the whole Lynn Andrews/New Age phenomenon so despised by many in the Native American community, I am with them all the way. She is a phony, exploiting peoples' ignorance about native peoples' history and culture to make a capitalist killing off the New Age market. She is tremendously successful at it. I also know that most the Native Americans I know, and I know a lot of them, are just as ignorant of their tribe's history and culture as most other people, they just have substituted their romanticized view of their past for the New Age romanticized view of their past. Neither is accurate, so I find the whole controversy surrounding the appropriation of native religion to be much less controversial than Russ Means or Dennis Banks would have you believe it is. I am in total solidarity with the repatriation of burial remains and goods from the white man. I fully support the rights of native tribes to be sovereign governing entities fopr their people and their lands, as defined in the treaties made with their ancestral leaders by the US government. Much of that land has been stolen, and must be returned to the tribes, along with their hunting, fishing, water, and mineral rights. I also support anything that can be done to save the native languages, such as they are, and the authentic cultural traditions of the tribes, so long as the practice of those cultural traditions is in accordance with healthy, beneficial traditional practices. Not all traditional practices rooted in culture are positive. The native traditional practice of abandoning female widows in the wilderness after the death of their male partner, as was practiced among some native tribes in the fairly recent past, would be one that comes most readily to my mind. Granted, it isn't done in the way it once was among the tribes, but any trip to a contemporary reservation will show you that plenty of elderly, widowed native women have been abandoned by their families and left in substandard housing, with little to no attention paid to their most basic needs of adequate food, heat, sanitation, transportation, and medical and mental health care. How is that any different than leaving them in the wilderness? There is a tremendous amount of misogyny and sexism in traditional cultures. I don't want to see that institutionalized in the name of false sanctity towards cultural traditions, which deserve to be left behind as relics of a superstititious past. The contemporary native religious practices are largely a reinvention, and that movement is wholly dominated by powerful male members of the communities who wish to glamorize a mythic warrior culture which never existed in the ways they claim they did. I don't support that. I don't support the practice of banishing women who are menstruating from community life while they have their period. I don't support institutionalizing those sorts of practices in native tradition today, because it reflects a backward thinking return to ignorant superstitions of the past. And that particular practice is mighty prevalent among the reinvented native religion advocates today. Go to a pow wow or community feed, and you will run into it. As to the medical thing, don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to read the fascinating book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, but that book and Mama Might be Better Off Dead: The Failure of Health Care in Urban America are two books that gave me a real "Aha!" moment when I read them. There are much bigger fish to fry than the New Age movement, even when it comes to medical charlatanism and outright malicious treatment of patients that are considered the dregs of our society, like the disabled, minorities, and elderly women of all cultures. |
