Marriage is under fire!!

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:49:55 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:



My conclusion was that the fact that it worked does not constitute
proof that the method was correct. This is still the case. Its
irrelevant whether or not the claim might turn out to be true. So,
no, I am not jumping to conclusions. My logic is correct.

I think you're slightly reinventing the logic after my post. The
point of your post as far as I can see was to discredit the idea that
it makes any sense to say a given method of therapy works for some
people and not others.

I have no problem with this concept. Sure, some cures only work on some
people. However, the fact that some method *appears* to work on some
people doesn't mean that it does. One needs controlled tests.

I posted an analogy to show why this might be
incorrect (the point of the analogy being that in the case of the
bipolar transistors, the person building the circuits would see a
clear agreement with the model which they could verify, whereas with
the mosfets it would just not work). My guess is that maybe the
Freudian approach might be more effective with people who are
inclined to intellectualise their problems, and not with people who
are more down to earth.

We are talking different issues here. Freud was a twat. Freudian psycho
babble doesn't work for anyone. Period. He was simply clueless.

So it could be that for such people, the
therapist would see the model clearly working in the same sort of way
as my analogy, whereas for other people it wouldn't, and they would
think - ok, that's not working, I'll try something else.

Some things simply get better on their own when you do nothing or
anything for that matter. There is little reason to suggest that psycho
babble has any effect at all.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:50:00 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:40:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:


that carries a
whole load of other associations beyond just the idea that
people's character and behaviour is a product of both their
genetic inheritance and later social influences.

Oh? Just what piece of magic, other than the hardware and
software programming of humans do you think is relevant to
humans?

The only escape, excluding magic, from classical determinism for
all of human behaviour, is quantum uncertainty. However, a random
trait generator, is by definition, random, therefore an "I" can
have no control over it. Any non-random control, is the result of
prior memes and genes.

So, what else do you actually suggest, again excluding magic?

what do you mean by magic that you insist on excluding it?

Anything that isn't a part of mass-energy physics.

That just seems ignorant to me

Not at all. This process actually works.

It works by, whenever something is explained scientifically which was
previously understood as magic, then it is no longer magic, and any
earlier approaches to understanding that thing are relegated to
'primitive superstition'. Which is alright in a way, except for the
way that until that happens, scientists have a tendency to invest far
more energy than is really justified into rubbishing any competing
explanations of things that they consider within their realm of
understanding, simply because they draw on conceptual frameworks
which don't easily fit the current scientific understanding of things.

One example is asian medical traditions like acupuncture and shiatsu.
I suffer from some mental health problems which are mostly around
excessive fearfulness/paranoia. In chinese medicine, the emotion of
fear is seen as related to the kidney meridian, which runs from the
big toe up the inside of your legs, and then up the sides of the
chest. 'Kidney chi weakness' is also the diagnosis I've had when I've
been to see traditional chinese practitioners. One way to balance
this out is simply to do exercises which involve stretching the
inside leg muscles, and massaging the kidney area. I've tried this

Ahmmm...this is way to vague to make any conclusions.

and it actually works for me,
but because the theory behind these
treatments is put in a conceptual framework which is foreign to
western medicine, many scientists seem to want to rubbish that whole
medical tradition just because it uses a language that makes no sense
to them.

Its not because the language makes no sense, its because there isn't a
theory here at all.

- it's assuming that one of the most
complex things we know of in the world must be explicable by
theories developed mainly to explain much simpler things,

Why shouldn't it be? We cant actually show the discrepancies that we
actually know exist in physics, e.g. QM v Relativity, with out making
say, particle accelerators as big as the galaxy.

So far the assumption seems justified. What do you actually suggest
requires new physics in explaining the "mind"? I don't see any.

I don't know - I'm quite out of touch with recent developments in
physics, to be honest. The way it's always seemed to me is that
whatever lawful explanation might be found for why we human beings
behave and act the way we do, this still says nothing about why
people should be consciously aware of the world that those laws
explain.

Why should there be a reason? It seems that being consciously aware
simply improves the probability of replications. It doesn't need another
reason.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
For one thing, I don't worship anything or anybody. But I know
what's right because I can feel it.

Oh you do do you? You just feel and intuitivly know what is right?
Wow.

Yes. That's exactly

{snip religious meaningless ramblings}

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[andy]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:55:42 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:50:00 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:40:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:


that carries a
whole load of other associations beyond just the idea that
people's character and behaviour is a product of both their
genetic inheritance and later social influences.

Oh? Just what piece of magic, other than the hardware and
software programming of humans do you think is relevant to
humans?

The only escape, excluding magic, from classical determinism for
all of human behaviour, is quantum uncertainty. However, a random
trait generator, is by definition, random, therefore an "I" can
have no control over it. Any non-random control, is the result of
prior memes and genes.

So, what else do you actually suggest, again excluding magic?

what do you mean by magic that you insist on excluding it?

Anything that isn't a part of mass-energy physics.

That just seems ignorant to me

Not at all. This process actually works.

It works by, whenever something is explained scientifically which was
previously understood as magic, then it is no longer magic, and any
earlier approaches to understanding that thing are relegated to
'primitive superstition'. Which is alright in a way, except for the
way that until that happens, scientists have a tendency to invest far
more energy than is really justified into rubbishing any competing
explanations of things that they consider within their realm of
understanding, simply because they draw on conceptual frameworks
which don't easily fit the current scientific understanding of things.

One example is asian medical traditions like acupuncture and shiatsu.
I suffer from some mental health problems which are mostly around
excessive fearfulness/paranoia. In chinese medicine, the emotion of
fear is seen as related to the kidney meridian, which runs from the
big toe up the inside of your legs, and then up the sides of the
chest. 'Kidney chi weakness' is also the diagnosis I've had when I've
been to see traditional chinese practitioners. One way to balance
this out is simply to do exercises which involve stretching the
inside leg muscles, and massaging the kidney area. I've tried this


Ahmmm...this is way to vague to make any conclusions.

It's only one example out of a whole medical tradition.

and it actually works for me,
but because the theory behind these
treatments is put in a conceptual framework which is foreign to
western medicine, many scientists seem to want to rubbish that whole
medical tradition just because it uses a language that makes no sense
to them.

Its not because the language makes no sense, its because there isn't a
theory here at all.

There is a theory - that human health is related to circulation/movement
of an energy (bad word to use because of the western scientific
connection) called chi, that this takes different forms which are
concentrated in a series of pathways called meridians, that the activation
of these meridians varies in a cyclical way which is described by the five
elements theory, that it is possible to diagnose energy imbalances using
various methods, etc. It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and
the signs and symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated
into western scientific terms.


--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

andy wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:55:42 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:50:00 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:40:05 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:


that carries a
whole load of other associations beyond just the idea that
people's character and behaviour is a product of both their
genetic inheritance and later social influences.

Oh? Just what piece of magic, other than the hardware and
software programming of humans do you think is relevant to
humans?

The only escape, excluding magic, from classical determinism
for all of human behaviour, is quantum uncertainty. However, a
random trait generator, is by definition, random, therefore an
"I" can have no control over it. Any non-random control, is
the result of prior memes and genes.

So, what else do you actually suggest, again excluding magic?

what do you mean by magic that you insist on excluding it?

Anything that isn't a part of mass-energy physics.

That just seems ignorant to me

Not at all. This process actually works.

It works by, whenever something is explained scientifically which
was previously understood as magic, then it is no longer magic, and
any earlier approaches to understanding that thing are relegated to
'primitive superstition'. Which is alright in a way, except for the
way that until that happens, scientists have a tendency to invest
far more energy than is really justified into rubbishing any
competing explanations of things that they consider within their
realm of understanding, simply because they draw on conceptual
frameworks which don't easily fit the current scientific
understanding of things.

One example is asian medical traditions like acupuncture and
shiatsu. I suffer from some mental health problems which are mostly
around excessive fearfulness/paranoia. In chinese medicine, the
emotion of fear is seen as related to the kidney meridian, which
runs from the big toe up the inside of your legs, and then up the
sides of the chest.

There is no logic to this idea. Fear is an emotion evolved to achieve a
certain function. i.e. make sure people take the appropriate action to
maximise their interests in the face of danger. The idea that this
"kidney meridian" has an effect on the brain is rather incredible. Sure,
maybe getting kicked in the kidneys might promote some response, but
there is no rational way a general relationship between fictitious
contours on the body and brain electrochemical responses can occur. It
just don't wash. Its simply stuff ignorant peasants dreamed up before
they had any idea of how the brain and body works.

'Kidney chi weakness' is also the diagnosis
I've had when I've been to see traditional chinese practitioners.
One way to balance this out is simply to do exercises which involve
stretching the inside leg muscles, and massaging the kidney area.
I've tried this


Ahmmm...this is way to vague to make any conclusions.

It's only one example out of a whole medical tradition.

and it actually works for me,
but because the theory behind these
treatments is put in a conceptual framework which is foreign to
western medicine, many scientists seem to want to rubbish that whole
medical tradition just because it uses a language that makes no
sense to them.

Its not because the language makes no sense, its because there isn't
a theory here at all.

There is a theory

Oh?

- that human health is related to
circulation/movement of an energy (bad word to use because of the
western scientific connection) called chi,

Indeed. The word "energy" is already taken. It is therefore pointless
using it to refer to something completely different.

that this takes different
forms which are concentrated in a series of pathways called
meridians, that the activation of these meridians varies in a
cyclical way which is described by the five elements theory, that it
is possible to diagnose energy imbalances using various methods, etc.

This is simple waffle. "Mental" "problems" must be either due to "bad"
genes (brain hardware) or bad memes (brain software). That's all there
is, excluding magic.

It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and the signs and
symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated into western
scientific terms.

I doubt it. If this er... "theory" made any real sense, it could be
expressed in a more normal concise language. Usually obtuse terms and
vague ideas are just a cover up for lack of any real substance. Its done
all the tome by palm readers, tea leaf readers, astrologists etc.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:20:38 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I doubt it. If this er... "theory" made any real sense, it could be
expressed in a more normal concise language. Usually obtuse terms and
vague ideas are just a cover up for lack of any real substance. Its done
all the tome by palm readers, tea leaf readers, astrologists etc.

---
If you book an appointment...

--
John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:56:06 +0100, andy
<news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:

which is exactly the sort of reply that shows you can't see what the fuck
I'm talking about.

---
Hmmm... the civilized veneer is starting to crack and the nasty little
prick hiding behind it is starting to rear its ugly little head.
Another touchy-feely wannabee bites the dust...
---

you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

---
What _I_ see is that what _you're_ doing is absolving yourself of the
reposibility of adequately associating proper meaning to the concepts
you espouse by trying to place the reponsibility for your inability to
adequately describe those concepts on the receiver.

--
John Fields

 

[andy]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:20:38 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:55:42 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

It works by, whenever something is explained scientifically which
was previously understood as magic, then it is no longer magic, and
any earlier approaches to understanding that thing are relegated to
'primitive superstition'. Which is alright in a way, except for the
way that until that happens, scientists have a tendency to invest
far more energy than is really justified into rubbishing any
competing explanations of things that they consider within their
realm of understanding, simply because they draw on conceptual
frameworks which don't easily fit the current scientific
understanding of things.

One example is asian medical traditions like acupuncture and
shiatsu. I suffer from some mental health problems which are mostly
around excessive fearfulness/paranoia. In chinese medicine, the
emotion of fear is seen as related to the kidney meridian, which
runs from the big toe up the inside of your legs, and then up the
sides of the chest.

There is no logic to this idea. Fear is an emotion evolved to achieve a
certain function. i.e. make sure people take the appropriate action to
maximise their interests in the face of danger. The idea that this
"kidney meridian" has an effect on the brain is rather incredible. Sure,
maybe getting kicked in the kidneys might promote some response, but
there is no rational way a general relationship between fictitious
contours on the body and brain electrochemical responses can occur. It
just don't wash. Its simply stuff ignorant peasants dreamed up before
they had any idea of how the brain and body works.

which is exactly the sort of reply that shows you can't see what the fuck
I'm talking about.

- that human health is related to
circulation/movement of an energy (bad word to use because of the
western scientific connection) called chi,

Indeed. The word "energy" is already taken. It is therefore pointless
using it to refer to something completely different.

that this takes different
forms which are concentrated in a series of pathways called
meridians, that the activation of these meridians varies in a
cyclical way which is described by the five elements theory, that it
is possible to diagnose energy imbalances using various methods, etc.

This is simple waffle. "Mental" "problems" must be either due to "bad"
genes (brain hardware) or bad memes (brain software). That's all there
is, excluding magic.

It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and the signs and
symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated into western
scientific terms.

I doubt it. If this er... "theory" made any real sense, it could be
expressed in a more normal concise language. Usually obtuse terms and
vague ideas are just a cover up for lack of any real substance. Its done
all the tome by palm readers, tea leaf readers, astrologists etc.

you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:12:52 +0100, andy <news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
wrote:

There is a theory - that human health is related to circulation/movement
of an energy (bad word to use because of the western scientific
connection) called chi, that this takes different forms which are
concentrated in a series of pathways called meridians, that the activation
of these meridians varies in a cyclical way which is described by the five
elements theory, that it is possible to diagnose energy imbalances using
various methods, etc. It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and
the signs and symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated
into western scientific terms.

Consider the claim of crystal therapists, Andy, who use pieces of quartz to
restore the balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy. (Here again we
see the use of the term "energy" for something that isn't really defined in any
form that outsiders can examine and understand.)

So, what does it mean to have unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition
recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced
spiritual energy had been, or had not been, balanced by the application of the
crystal therapy?

I don't think it's just a matter of Western versus _other_ methods and
denigrating them, just because they may not easily fit existing Western science
thought. It's simply a matter that this isn't science because it has NOT been
crafted into deductive theoretical language that exposes itself to falsification
through experimental result.

This crystal therapy gobbledygook has all the earmarks of an undeclared claim.
These undeclared claims, of course, have the distinct advantage that virtually
any evidence that could be adduced may be interpreted as congruent with the
claims.

The point is that something isn't science until someone has the imaginative
insights as well as the precise thinking required in order to construct a
testable theory.

Inductive thinking, no matter how practical it may be, is NOT science thinking.
Noticing that the sun rises each day and then composing a "theory" that the sun
__will__ continue to rise each day is induction. And such ramblings, despite
the fact that some folks might consider it useful and even "correct," is not
science theory-making.

What makes the difference here is imagining in one's mind the idea that planets
may move about the sun in ellipses and that the earth itself may be like a
sphere and then, by manner of rigorous deduction and experimental result, to
show that the imaginative concepts __may__ rather precisely explain those
observations. In fact, various deductions from this theory can then be composed
as new possible experiments, so that it can be seen if ad-hoc deductions can be
tested and validated -- even ones not conceivable without the theory in place.

Perhaps I should use the word __independent__ to highlight what I mean here.
Science uses __independent__ theory, theory which is constructed out of whole
cloth, so to speak -- which may or may not be inspired by direct observation.
Sometimes, it's entirely "unthinkable" in many ways. Modern general theory of
relativity and quantum mechanics are two such examples of "unthinkable" ideas
that, when examining their deductions closely, bear out quite well. Theory is
independent of observation, not induced from it. That's what gives it its
strength. Because if you can take a "random" thought, put it into objective
language that is precise and rigorous, and **THEN** make some specific
deductions from it that appear to match well with **NEW** observation from
experiments designed to test it, then you really do HAVE SOMETHING!

Just thinking in terms of what our natural senses tell us and what our genetic
makeup allows us to easily perceive in order to think inductively, while
powerful for day to day living, is entirely dangerous to science because it can
so easily lead us astray. Our natural senses tell us the earth isn't moving,
yet it is. Our natural senses tell us about "hot" and "cold" yet we know from
science these two sensations aren't terribly useful. Our natural senses tell us
about weight and heft and sharp and dull and, for a long time people thought
these qualities were what determined the "sinking versus floating" question.
Yet science tells us that density is the useful concept here and our senses
unfortunately do not measure density -- and it took millennia for the idea of
density (merely the ratio of mass to volume) to be discovered as a useful idea.

Independent theory depends heavily on imagination and is conceived independent
of observation. Independent does NOT mean without observation. It just means
that the theory isn't constructed inductively FROM observation. If you do that,
all you have is exactly what you started with, an idea that predicts exactly
what you've already seen and nothing else.

Induction to make theory is like extracting boulders from the rocky soil to
build low, stone boundary walls (as New England farmers once did.) Some care is
used to fit smaller stones amid larger ones to create a weakly interconnected,
mortarless structure. It can run across a wide expanse and be built almost
anywhere. But these inductive "boulders of fact" are weakly connected and
support only a few neighbors and only reach a few feet of height. And a
bulldozer pushing through a section leaves the rest of the wall unaffected.
Just as demolishing astrology, for example, would have almost no impact on tea
leaf reading.

Deductive theory for science, to continue the analogy, builds great arches of
knowledge, each stone or nugget adding to the overall strength of the whole so
that entire civilizations can be built safely upon them.

Kepler wrote, "One more cartload of dung as the price for ridding the system of
a vaster amount of dung!" Yet his model was mathematically precise, empirically
accurate within measurement error at his time, and vastly more economical than
previous concepts. Still, he saw that it was only descriptive and not based on
fundamental principles.

If you understand what I've written, then you will immediately see why Kepler
wrote so disparagingly about his own successes. Without differential calculus
and/or analytical geometry, which he lacked, the three Laws show no apparent
connection to each other. They are disjoint and don't make sense. Why should
the planets move elliptically? Why is their speed related by the area swept
over by the radius vector and not by some other factor? Why is the ratio of
distance and period somehow tied up with cubes and squares?

What Newton did was to provide both the mathematical advances as well as the
imaginative theory (the idea that every point of mass, for example, attracts
every other point of mass no matter how distant they are and throughout all of
the universe and not just on earth) that could be then used to make deductions.
It wasn't long after that they were able to test the theory with the motion of
the moon.

But without the unifying theory which binds them, Kepler's ellipses, as good a
_model_ as they were for the facts, lacked the rigorous and imaginative theory
that science requires. His laws, good as they were, were not _theory_. And
models are not the same as theory. And he knew this. And said so.

This doesn't take anything away from this kind of medicine you talked about,
Andy. If it works in some cases, and it may for all I know, then it does work
in those cases. But it's not the same thing as saying that there is some
scientific theory going on here or that Western Science is denigrating those who
are "different." It's just that until someone manages to have the imagination
and the skills required to fashion an independent theory for this field of
practice, it remains merely a clinical practice that works sometimes (if it
does) and not science. That's no skin off it's nose, so to speak. Just that it
cannot claim to be science when all it is... is clinical field practice.

So far as I'm aware, Andy, the construction of the Meridians, the use of its own
term of 'energy' and Chi, are inductive. Not deductive. That's the key. Like
Kepler's ellipses, they lack good theory. They may _model_ something useful.
But that doesn't make them science theory, Andy.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Just to elaborate:

Merely descriptive ideas alone aren't science theory. Science theory involves
fundamental, imaginative insights that are then either selected or rejected.

If you "work backwards" from observation to arrive at what amounts to a trivial
generalizations, there is nothing new created. Such inductions will only tell
you what you already know and have seen. But if you use your imagination to
create something entirely independent and new and if it then, through deduction
and test, turns out to be confirmed by experimental result, then you probably
have something really interesting.

Imagining that any two point masses are attracted to each other, regardless of
distance, and that the force between them is inversely related to the square of
their distance and proportional to each point mass and some proportionality
constant, then you have something truly novel and independent as ideas go. From
that and some calculus, you can show then that a sphere of mass can be treated
as a single point of mass and this then is a derivation that makes analysis as
well as experimental testing tractable. In the end, the idea either stands or
falls.

If it had been simply inductive, then the results would, of course, appear to
match the inductive claim. But of course it would, since the induction itself
was based on mere "pattern matching" based on our abilities to do so from actual
observation. Nothing new can be tested, since the claim only predicts just what
it was designed to generalize.

Using independent theory as one key element allows the science process to
operate, in many ways, just like evolution itself does in nature. (Where
"random mutation modifying genetics" is replaced by "imaginative insights
leading to deductive theory" and "natural selection and rejection based on
relative success at passing on specific genetics" is replaced by "theory
selection and rejection based on experimental result."

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 23:51:50 +0100, andy <news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk>
wrote:

There is a theoretical language, just not as complex as that used by
western medicine. I'd have to know more about it in depth to say whether
its predictions could be falsified in the way you're talking about. If
chinese medicine was wholly useless, I doubt that it would have lasted as
long as it has - it's not like things like people believing whether the
sun moved round the earth, which didn't make much practical difference to
their lives at the time.

If you read me closely, you'll see that I not only steered clear of saying that
it was useless, in practice, but went out of my way to make it clear that I
didn't intend such implications.

Knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow is useful, too. But it's not a theory
of science. It's a deduction *from* imaginative and independent theory.

There lies the key. Being useful or practical says nothing about whether or not
it's scientific.

I don't have the energy to reply to the rest of this.

Understood. I apologize for writing too much.

Jon

 

[andy]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 14:05:37 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:56:06 +0100, andy
news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


which is exactly the sort of reply that shows you can't see what the fuck
I'm talking about.

---
Hmmm... the civilized veneer is starting to crack and the nasty little
prick hiding behind it is starting to rear its ugly little head.

Sorry. I've been having a lousy time lately.

Another touchy-feely wannabee bites the dust...

I'm not defending chinese medicine because I want to be touchy-feely. I
don't even like the touchy-feely stuff on the whole - I'm defending it
because as far as I can see, it works. In the sense that, the same as
western medicine, there is a set of theoretical principles and diagnostic
techniques and methods of treatment which taken together allow people
skilled in the art of it to make people who are ill, less ill.
I'm not a practitioner of any of these arts - I was going to see someone
for shiatsu a while back, which was helping until I couldn't afford it any
more, I've read some of the theory behind it, and I do a few of the
exercises that I have found help me. I have a background in science, so
I'm curious about how the two approaches relate to each other.

you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

---
What _I_ see is that what _you're_ doing is absolving yourself of the
reposibility of adequately associating proper meaning to the concepts
you espouse by trying to place the reponsibility for your inability to
adequately describe those concepts on the receiver.

I don't think that's fair - my point was that to someone from a scientific
background, 'proper meaning' means, 'described in terms of the concepts of
physics, chemistry and biology'. But chinese medicine developed quite
independently of the tradition of thought that led to western science and
medicine, so it's not surprising that it is hard to translate terms
between one and the other. For example, the kidney meridian bit could
probably be understood partly in western terms by talking in terms of
release of hormones associated with the adrenal glands, various patterns
of thought and body posture that are associated with that, and so on. But
if you were to then just say 'oh that's what it is - they were talking
about adrenal hormones', you would be losing a lot of the understanding
that the chinese system has of how shifting patterns of activation move
between the different meridian/organ systems, and how to bring these back
to a more stable, mutually reinforcing state using simple methods of
diagnosis and treatment that only require a skilled practitioner to do it,
rather than the whole apparatus of scientific medicine you find in a
modern hospital.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:32:46 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan@easystreet.com>
wrote:

Using independent theory as one key element allows the science process to
operate, in many ways, just like evolution itself does in nature. (Where
"random mutation modifying genetics" is replaced by "imaginative insights
leading to deductive theory" and "natural selection and rejection based on
relative success at passing on specific genetics" is replaced by "theory
selection and rejection based on experimental result."

That is... new, independent ideas are the source of grist for the grindstone of
science experiment to either destroy or else allow to continue for another shot
at the grindstone, another day. Just as new mutations are the source of grist
for the grindstone of natural selection to either destroy or else allow to
continue for another cycle of life. Experimental result can destroy wrong
theory in the current context of more prosaic theory and result, but it cannot
ever prove correct ones for all time. Just as natural selection can only
destroy unsuccessful mutations in the current context of the natural
environment, but cannot ever make life that is guaranteed to survive for all
time.

Kind of poetic, really.

Jon

 

[andy]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:08:37 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:12:52 +0100, andy <news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk
wrote:

There is a theory - that human health is related to circulation/movement
of an energy (bad word to use because of the western scientific
connection) called chi, that this takes different forms which are
concentrated in a series of pathways called meridians, that the activation
of these meridians varies in a cyclical way which is described by the five
elements theory, that it is possible to diagnose energy imbalances using
various methods, etc. It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and
the signs and symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated
into western scientific terms.

Consider the claim of crystal therapists, Andy, who use pieces of quartz to
restore the balance and harmony to a person's spiritual energy. (Here again we
see the use of the term "energy" for something that isn't really defined in any
form that outsiders can examine and understand.)

So, what does it mean to have unbalanced spiritual energy? How is the condition
recognized and diagnosed? What evidence would prove that someone's unbalanced
spiritual energy had been, or had not been, balanced by the application of the
crystal therapy?

I know - I find some of the New Age stuff pretty bizarre as well. I do
understand the point you're making about falsifiability. I saw something
in the New Scientist about someone who had put up a web page about
'crystal homeopathy' or something, went on a few new age bulletin boards
claiming to be the inventor of this new approach, sparked off some
heated discussion about whether it was valid or not, and then told
everyone he had made up the whole thing to test peoples' gullibility. I
found this funny at the time, because I could see the point of doing that.
As far as I know, there is some real substance to the chinese medical
stuff, which is why I'm defending it. I wasn't expecting to get an easy
time of it on a group like this, but this stuff does matter to me, so I'm
doing my best.

I don't think it's just a matter of Western versus _other_ methods and
denigrating them, just because they may not easily fit existing Western science
thought. It's simply a matter that this isn't science because it has NOT been
crafted into deductive theoretical language that exposes itself to falsification
through experimental result.

There is a theoretical language, just not as complex as that used by
western medicine. I'd have to know more about it in depth to say whether
its predictions could be falsified in the way you're talking about. If
chinese medicine was wholly useless, I doubt that it would have lasted as
long as it has - it's not like things like people believing whether the
sun moved round the earth, which didn't make much practical difference to
their lives at the time.

I don't have the energy to reply to the rest of this.


--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[andy]

trying again.

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:20:38 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

andy wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:55:42 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:


It works by, whenever something is explained scientifically which
was previously understood as magic, then it is no longer magic, and
any earlier approaches to understanding that thing are relegated to
'primitive superstition'. Which is alright in a way, except for the
way that until that happens, scientists have a tendency to invest
far more energy than is really justified into rubbishing any
competing explanations of things that they consider within their
realm of understanding, simply because they draw on conceptual
frameworks which don't easily fit the current scientific
understanding of things.

One example is asian medical traditions like acupuncture and
shiatsu. I suffer from some mental health problems which are mostly
around excessive fearfulness/paranoia. In chinese medicine, the
emotion of fear is seen as related to the kidney meridian, which
runs from the big toe up the inside of your legs, and then up the
sides of the chest.

There is no logic to this idea.

What you mean is, you can't see how this idea makes sense in terms of your
knowledge of human physiology. If that's not what you mean, then what do
you mean?

Fear is an emotion evolved to achieve a
certain function. i.e. make sure people take the appropriate action to
maximise their interests in the face of danger. The idea that this
"kidney meridian" has an effect on the brain is rather incredible.

Why? I mentioned in another post that you can make some sense of this in
western terms by talking about the release of adrenal hormones. Which do
have an effect on the brain by shifting it into 'fight or flight'
defensive mode. But as I said there, to then reduce the chinese concept to
that and say - now we know what they were talking about, is throwing away
a lot of other understanding they had which goes along with that concept.
For example the way that the kidney meridian holds the heart meridian in
check, so low kidney energy causes a flare up of heart energy. Which, as
far as I can see is what happens when someone gets stoned on cannabis -
this is known in chinese medicine to cause a reduction in kidney chi, but
benefits stomach chi. Low kidney chi equals fearfulness/paranoia (a
common side-effect). More stomach chi means you get the munchies (a common
side effect). Heart chi is related to imagination and speech; hence stoned
ramblings and flights of fancy.

Sure,
maybe getting kicked in the kidneys might promote some response, but
there is no rational way a general relationship between fictitious
contours on the body and brain electrochemical responses can occur. It
just don't wash. Its simply stuff ignorant peasants dreamed up before
they had any idea of how the brain and body works.

They did have an idea of how the brain and body works - they knew that it
had among other things to do with the movement of various forms of chi
through the body, and they found a (simple by our standards) theoretical
language for describing this, and using it to treat sickness.

'Kidney chi weakness' is also the diagnosis
I've had when I've been to see traditional chinese practitioners. One
way to balance this out is simply to do exercises which involve
stretching the inside leg muscles, and massaging the kidney area.
I've tried this


Ahmmm...this is way to vague to make any conclusions.

It's only one example out of a whole medical tradition.

and it actually works for me,
but because the theory behind these
treatments is put in a conceptual framework which is foreign to
western medicine, many scientists seem to want to rubbish that whole
medical tradition just because it uses a language that makes no sense
to them.

Its not because the language makes no sense, its because there isn't a
theory here at all.

There is a theory

Oh?


- that human health is related to
circulation/movement of an energy (bad word to use because of the
western scientific connection) called chi,

Indeed. The word "energy" is already taken. It is therefore pointless
using it to refer to something completely different.

that this takes different
forms which are concentrated in a series of pathways called meridians,
that the activation of these meridians varies in a cyclical way which
is described by the five elements theory, that it is possible to
diagnose energy imbalances using various methods, etc.

This is simple waffle. "Mental" "problems" must be either due to "bad"
genes (brain hardware) or bad memes (brain software). That's all there
is, excluding magic.

If you're feeling stressed and you take a bath to relax, then what does
that have to do with either genes or memes?

It's just that most of the theoretical terms, and the signs and
symptoms connected with them, can't easily be translated into western
scientific terms.

I doubt it. If this er... "theory" made any real sense

now you're just being snide.

, it could be
expressed in a more normal concise language. Usually obtuse terms and
vague ideas are just a cover up for lack of any real substance. Its done
all the tome by palm readers, tea leaf readers, astrologists etc.

can be, but how is 'wave equation' not a vague idea to someone who doesn't
know quantum physics?

I'll try an analogy. If there are half a dozen people in a room having a
fierce argument, what's the best way of describing what is happening, or
putting things right? You could run blood samples and
electroencephalograms at short intervals on each of the people there, and
try somehow to describe it in terms of levels of activation of various
brain circuits, and maybe prescribe psychoactive drugs to the different
people accordingly. Or you could say, john loves julie but thinks she's
sleeping with fred, bill knows something about it but isn't saying, the
cat's sat in the corner wondering when the humans are going to realise
it's tea time, etc. I don't know how to sort things like that out - I'm
crap at it. To me, the chinese medical approach is more like the second
way - having a language for describing patterns of relationships between
things, but that isn't the point, and it's a bit unfair on science to use
the analogy that way - the point is about different languages of
description, and how it isn't always easy to translate between them.

--
http://www.niftybits.ukfsn.org/

remove 'n-u-l-l' to email me. html mail or attachments will go in the spam
bin unless notified with

 or [attachment] in the subject line.

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

The point is that something isn't science until someone has the
imaginative insights as well as the precise thinking required in order to
construct a testable theory.

I guess mine isn't science because it isn't testable by anyone other
than the individual doing the experiment. If you've never experienced
the flow of Kundalini up from your open root chakra, then I might as
well be speaking Ferengi. There's no way I could possibly prove that
I've felt what I have - there really isn't any way to satisfactorily
describe it, because it can't even be imagined until it's been experienced.
Like, try to describe to a virgin what lovemaking feels like. It can't be
done.

But it _is_ there, and I'm honestly sad for the people who are missing
out because of their dogmas. Like, I've found Nirvana, and nobody seems
to want it. Go figure!

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

andy wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:20:38 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:
....
I doubt it. If this er... "theory" made any real sense, it could be
expressed in a more normal concise language. Usually obtuse terms and
vague ideas are just a cover up for lack of any real substance. Its done
all the tome by palm readers, tea leaf readers, astrologists etc.


you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

Exactly. It doesn't fit inside his dogma, therefore in his reality

it simply doesn't exist. And because it can't fit inside his dogma,
in his reality it _can't_ exist, because that would break his dogma,
and that, of course, means death. >:->

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:56:06 +0100, andy
news4@earthsong.free-online.co.uk> wrote:


which is exactly the sort of reply that shows you can't see what the fuck
I'm talking about.

---
Hmmm... the civilized veneer is starting to crack and the nasty little
prick hiding behind it is starting to rear its ugly little head.
Another touchy-feely wannabee bites the dust...
---


you're doing the exact thing I was talking about - rubbishing chinese
medicine because its ideas are expressed in a language that you can't
translate into western terms and go - ok I see how that works.

---
What _I_ see is that what _you're_ doing is absolving yourself of the
reposibility of adequately associating proper meaning to the concepts
you espouse by trying to place the reponsibility for your inability to
adequately describe those concepts on the receiver.

Can you describe an orgasm to somebody who's never had one?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
For one thing, I don't worship anything or anybody. But I know
what's right because I can feel it.

Oh you do do you? You just feel and intuitivly know what is right?
Wow.

Yes. That's exactly

{snip religious meaningless ramblings}

Sir, I'd thank you not to refer to my meaningless ramblings as
"religious."

Religious fanatics are almost as dogmatic as you are. I contemn dogmatists
of any sort.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

andy wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:19:35 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
For one thing, I don't worship anything or anybody. But I know what's
right because I can feel it.

Oh you do do you? You just feel and intuitivly know what is right? Wow.

Yes. That's exactly right. It's built in, like all the rest of your
senses. It's the feeling-sense, for lack of a better name. Problem
is, people have been programmed since before they were born

/before/ they were born?

to reject
the evidence of their senses and believe what they've been told to.

Yeah, but it's a very long story, and depends on the "existence" of "things"

that most people _know_ couldn't possibly be real, like "spirits." So, say
"from the day they're born", and it might make more sense. But look at it -
everything that feels good is condemned either as sinful, or a waste of
time, or irresponsible, or something. They say, "no pain no gain." What do
you gain by inflicting pain on yourself? Why do we even have a sense of
pain if it isn't supposed to protect us from hurting ourselves?

But I've realized, I'm not really doing much by expounding here except
looking foolish.

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy."

- W. Shakespeare

Cheers!
Rich