It would be foolish to be swayed by just one anecdotal claim like this. It is prudent to do a bit of research and see if the
claim is backed up at all elsewhere.
Internet is just like real life. True, phony, false, gossip all flow freely. Information splashed across Internet covers a full spectrum too.
In real life interactions, our instinct guides us what people are saying and what they really mean, if they are genuine, untrustworthy, shifty, mean, selfish....the whole range.
Same applies online. You read bunch of stuff, it takes very little time to suss if it is baloney or substantial...
Vulnerable people such as cancer patients, are desperate for help and can be less discerning due to fear and pressure of their situation
Pity that some charlatan should take advantage of folks. It has happened before will continue to happen
deception is nothing new. In real life as well as online, people make claims to drum up business. Hook and crook or pure projections.
Research, instinct, experience of life all constribute to stay safe.
One incident....is not nearly enough
Actually skepticism is needed about what appears in papers and magazines too....and in scientific journals. In my own field of pharmacy I am well aware of drugs that have been marketed after clinical trials , then withdrawn after problems were observed in practice.. This happens because the majority of clinical trials on new drugs are carried out on relatively small numbers of patients....in the hundreds. I know a lot of people who read these forums will find my espousal of science a problem. Scientists and drug companies are seen 'the enemy' But the bottom line is scientific method is the only reliable way to get reliable information. The majority of scientists, like the majority of those who post on alternative approaches do not lie. They are genuinely saying what they believe is true. I know people like ye lady in this story are in the minority. But all too often in the alternative camp there is reliance on anecdotal evidence. And those sorts of stores are always coloured by our own perceptions and bias and that includes scientists.....we are not immune from seeing what we want to see either.
Actually skepticism is needed about what appears in papers and magazines too....and in scientific journals. In my own field of pharmacy I am well aware of drugs that have been marketed after clinical trials , then withdrawn after problems were observed in practice.. This happens because the majority of clinical trials on new drugs are carried out on relatively small numbers of patients....in the hundreds. I know a lot of people who read these forums will find my espousal of science a problem. Scientists and drug companies are seen 'the enemy' But the bottom line is scientific method is the only reliable way to get reliable information. The majority of scientists, like the majority of those who post on alternative approaches do not lie. They are genuinely saying what they believe is true. I know people like ye lady in this story are in the minority. But all too often in the alternative camp there is reliance on anecdotal evidence. And those sorts of stores are always coloured by our own perceptions and bias and that includes scientists.....we are not immune from seeing what we want to see either.
"Bottom line is Scientific method is the only reliable way to get information".... It is a sweeping statement that one hears all the time. It is hypnotic! This has become modern cliche. Beauty is when something is over repeated, the cracks come visible too. Reminds me of such a thing called 'scientific superstition'.
Beauty is "scientific mind" can and does poo pooh most things passed on traditionally. How scientific is that pray?
Scientific means open to mystery, open to unknown...or in this case known. But openness is a must.
As they become more experts, they become more "focused" as an expert explained to me...narrow and focused. Yes, That is not hard to notice!
How old is our science exactly?
Couple of hundred years old-even that is stretching it
It is a mistake to presume that scientific is unbiased and always reliable. Outcome of Most, not all, most scientific research can be heavily reliant on who is sponsoring it. Science can be high jacked purely due to human factor. It can be directional. I will have to dig out a link to validate that. Most of the scientific research is nearly not scientific enough due to myriad factors of inclination, focus, intent, mind set, objective etc
Yes, anecdotal is colored by perceptions....the research scientifically carried out us not immune to that phenomenon either.
Before science....and modern research methodology came about, traditional wisdom, dating thousands of years of us humans on the planet....debunked...poof! Derided, banish! It is not as reliable as our research....
We forget that science and traditional wisdom (mostly loose and anecdotal) are both tools in our hands, not masters that we must obey. Unfortunately, this seems to have become a sub conscious pattern amongst us. Both approaches have flaws. When we start the dynamic of rubbish ing the other, it is defeating the purpose. Purpose being well being.
It is easiest thing to become polarized in this world. Follow one discard everything else. Not very wholesome. Fragmented within ourselves, we lose. Because both approaches are for us, not us for either of these approaches. Because both schools seek to serve us or should but that does not sometimes hold true with money, in the equation.
Not faithful to either, exploring both with open heart. Using both with discernment.
It is common place to see an arrogance in followers of traditional( some call it alternative, but I prefer traditional) as well as allopathic and scientific.
Both have tug of war to prove supremacy of their own camp.
"Bottom line is Scientific method is the only reliable way to get information".... It is a sweeping statement that one hears all the time. It is hypnotic! This has become modern cliche. Beauty is when something is over repeated, the cracks come visible too. Reminds me of such a thing called 'scientific superstition'.
Beauty is "scientific mind" can and does poo pooh most things passed on traditionally. How scientific is that pray?
Scientific means open to mystery, open to unknown...or in this case known. But openness is a must.
As they become more experts, they become more "focused" as an expert explained to me...narrow and focused. Yes, That is not hard to notice!How old is our science exactly?
Couple of hundred years old-even that is stretching itIt is a mistake to presume that scientific is unbiased and always reliable. Outcome of Most, not all, most scientific research can be heavily reliant on who is sponsoring it. Science can be high jacked purely due to human factor. It can be directional. I will have to dig out a link to validate that. Most of the scientific research is nearly not scientific enough due to myriad factors of inclination, focus, intent, mind set, objective etc
Yes, anecdotal is colored by perceptions....the research scientifically carried out us not immune to that phenomenon either.
Before science....and modern research methodology came about, traditional wisdom, dating thousands of years of us humans on the planet....debunked...poof! Derided, banish! It is not as reliable as our research....We forget that science and traditional wisdom (mostly loose and anecdotal) are both tools in our hands, not masters that we must obey. Unfortunately, this seems to have become a sub conscious pattern amongst us. Both approaches have flaws. When we start the dynamic of rubbish ing the other, it is defeating the purpose. Purpose being well being.
It is easiest thing to become polarized in this world. Follow one discard everything else. Not very wholesome. Fragmented within ourselves, we lose. Because both approaches are for us, not us for either of these approaches. Because both schools seek to serve us or should but that does not sometimes hold true with money, in the equation.Not faithful to either, exploring both with open heart. Using both with discernment.
It is common place to see an arrogance in followers of traditional( some call it alternative, but I prefer traditional) as well as allopathic and scientific.
Both have tug of war to prove supremacy of their own camp.
if we don't use scientific method how would you have us get reliable information? By scientific. method I don;t mean trials, I mean the application of a little common sense, testing what we think to be true, and trying to be unbiased in how we assess the results..... after all the hypothesis may be wrong. And this is a system that has been around for 1000's of years. Our science is based on what the Greeks and arabs did and dates from BCE.
I apply scientific method to my reiki. I have a standard blurb I tell people before their first treatment, and this includes that 'some people see colours' I never tell them WHAT colour and more than 3/4 of those who see colours report seeing the same colour. As I haven't suggested a colour to them I know this a genuine experience....and I am fascinated by what it means that so many report seeing the same colour.
I don't think either camp needs to prove it is supreme...they can peacefully co-exist. At least they can in my world. Maybe not in yours but I am a pragmatist prepared to live and let live.
if we don't use scientific method how would you have us get reliable information? By scientific. method I don;t mean trials, I mean the application of a little common sense, testing what we think to be true, and trying to be unbiased in how we assess the results..... after all the hypothesis may be wrong. And this is a system that has been around for 1000's of years. Our science is based on what the Greeks and arabs did and dates from BCE.
Tashanie, sorry to disagree, far from being thousands of years old. It is only around 1830-40, they started to figure out that blood letting, leeches, humours as practiced by Greeks, Egyptians etc was not the way to treat anything. That was the little common sense way they treated maladies. modern research based medical science is less than 200 years old. It is not that hard to research.
I apply scientific method to my reiki. I have a standard blurb I tell people before their first treatment, and this includes that 'some people see colours' I never tell them WHAT colour and more than 3/4 of those who see colours report seeing the same colour. As I haven't suggested a colour to them I know this a genuine experience....and I am fascinated by what it means that so many report seeing the same colour.
...and that is scientific? Good god! Other than slightly veering off from the fact being discussed that scientific method is the only way to ascertain reliable results.
Maybe not in yours but I am a pragmatist prepared to live and let live.
Not Sure if you cared to read and understand my post before jumping to reply?
Buy glad to know that things co exist happily within you
Stay that way