Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun 245 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  Abaddon:
  Ermmm.....
  I took that definition straight out of the Oxford dictionary, which I have right here on my desk.

  Again, people SAYING something means nothing.

  I can't agree with this at all. If that were the case, most doctors would have to do full work-ups for every head cold. There are many (if not most) sphere's of life where someone's word is the basis from which facts are ascertained and/or further researched.

  Regarding Faith Healing, I never took that example, but I have seen it performed, and I will add my own anecdotal testimony to it's efficacy.
• 

  rem

  LT,
  
  :To be honest, I have no time for Randi.
  
  That's cool. I'm not a big fan of his approach sometimes too, but it's the message that's important, not the messenger. The fact still remains that people die because of irrational beliefs. What's even sadder is that sometimes (such as in the posted account) innocent people die because of other people's irrational beliefs. (e.g. JW parents irrational blood doctrine and how it affects their children)
  
  Sirona,
  
  I'm sure there are responsible practicioners of Reiki and other alternative therapies. The problem is that irresponsible practicioners do exist. The fact that people are still dying of diseases that they should have a high probability of survival is proof that this is the case. Such alternative remedies foster an irrational view of the world an many times cultivate suspicion of the orthodox medical and scientific community.
  
  If you keep telling people that things just work without providing proof then it devalues evidence and scientific method. You effectively make a doctor's educated opinion seem like nothing more than anyone else's opinion. Suddenly Aunt Flow's advice seems just as valid as the doctor's. It does happen - all too often.
  
  rem
• 

  Abaddon

  It says TRUE?

  Peculiar; then most evidence presented as anecdotal is not anecdotal as there is no evidence of its veracity - if indeed you take anecdotal to mean 'true'.

  When I say people saying something means nothing, I thought it was obvious I meant saying something in itself means nothing.

  I can say that eating my boogers cures cancer. Means NOTHING. A faith healer can say 'this will probably help' in relation to their healing, and it would mean nothing. A doctor could say 'this pill helps 67% of patients', and be able to show you the doubleblind randomised stats that showed this was so.

  And if faith healing is so effective, why can't it's effectiveness be proved?

  You may choose to be far more accepting and trusting that what people say is true.

  I don't.

  People lie to themselves and each other on a regular basis.

  Self-belief is SO strong that people can believe they have a magic dowsing ability, even when this has NEVER been demonstrated in proper experiments AND they believe it so strongly they have a subconcious 'twich' that makes them think the stick's moving of it's own accord. Read the link, please;

  http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

  Think of the same level of self deception applied to healers AND the healed. Think of the lack of convincing experimental evidence. Do the maths.

  And note NOBODY has said; "ahha! Here's conclusive proof x works, or y works or x works". They've just said 'don't knock it'.

  Doesn't it make you kinda suspicious?

  BUT, I'm not saying 'it don't work' re. all paranormal claims.

  I AM saying 'prove it if you think it's a benefit to mankind'.

  I mean, where would we be if Flemming had decided that testing the weird bacteria killing properties of mould wasn't neccesary as it sort of worked anyway? Without a proper range of antibiotics.

  If people researched and studied these unproven therapies etc., then a lot of good could come out of it; either developing decent usable mass therapies or debunking charlatans. I'm fine with both - even if the charlatans are sincere..
• 

  LittleToe

  Rem:
  Agreed

  Abaddon:
  With regards to the Faith Healing, I was skeptical too.
  I went along and kept thinking "yeah, yeah", right up to the point that one of my friends was called up on stage (bearing in mind that we were both from out of town - so was the guy, as he was from India).

  He was correctly diagnosed with spondilitus (in his neck), and cured.
  This was something that he had complained of (to me) many times previously, and had also been previously diagnosed by his doctor.
  To this day he's fine, and this is after a year.

  This is anecdotal evidence, that could be verified easily enough.
  I suspect that you may take my word for it, though
• 

  rem

  LT,
  
  Perhaps your friend was healed by the faith healer... unfortunately we will never know to any certainty.
  
  It would be interesting to do a trial of 100 spondilitus sufferers, have some of them go to a faith healer, have some go to a fake faith healer (I suppose it's possible), and have the rest take normal pain medications (or whatever is currently recommended).
  
  In this test you would expect a certain number from each sample to go into remission. The trick is to see if one method actually works significantly (statistically speaking) better and helps people beyond placebo effect. I doubt you would really want your faith healer to be put under a clinical trial as I'm sure you know the probability is quite high that his methods will turn out to be bunk.
  
  In fact, people have done followups with faith-healed subjects and the results are not favorable for the faith healer. For every anecdote you can provide of someone being healed, another can be produced by someone who was not healed. But then, the faith healer always has the old standby "they didn't have enough faith" to fall back on. Personally, I think it's pathetic. Some of the stories are quite heart wrenching (Lissa Hayes' story at http://www.randi.org/jr/121203jref.html)
  
  Yeah yeah, I know... some are real and some are fakes. ;) Well, maybe there should be a certification process... and how can you reliably discern between real and fake faith healers except by testing? I think you know that if this testing were done, they'd all turn out to be fake - (lacking efficacy beyond placebo).
  
  Hey, I think it would be great if serious ailments could be healed by faith or other new-age alternative remedies. Imagine - no more medicine necessary - no more hospitals! Unfortunately we live in the real world. It is much easier to tickle our ears by believing in simple solutions to complex problems.
  
  rem
• 

  LittleToe

  It'll be a bit hard to follow this one up, seeing as he lives in India

  Skeptical to the end, huh?

  As I say, so was I, until I saw it with my own eyes...
• 

  Abaddon

  Hey LT

  This is anecdotal evidence, that could be verified easily enough.
  I suspect that you may take my word for it, though

  I don't doubt your word; I don't doubt it happens.

  What I find unconvincing is that there is no concerted effort to try and understand what is happening by the people who advocate it, an action which would give more people benefit and remove any unjustified image of quackery or chalatanhood.

  Instead of this there is horror expressed when anyone does the simple act of asking for proof it works. As I said before, it seems belieiving the paranormal has different standards to belieiving a financial advisor; in one instance going ahead with no proof of promises is considered foolish, in another those going ahead without any proof of promises consider any who question them 'closed-minded'.

  I'm surprised you don't see the double standard, even if you have see it work for yourself.
• 

  LittleToe

  I see the double-standard in some.

  Like yourself, I'd love to see it verified and quantified.
  Maybe, one day people will feel comfortable enough to express it and get to the bottom of it.
  After all, they did that with acupuncture, as already considered...
• 

  seesthesky

  Time and space do not, as far as we know, constitute matter. Despite the near-universal assumption that time and space have bases in reality, those concepts do not exist absent a consciousness to experience them. All thoughts (studies, etc.) about the physical world, however, must take time and space into consideration and by doing so combine subjectve elements (time and space) with objective ones (e.g., the motion of actual matter such as proteins or flood waters). To make "workable" sense of our world, it apears we cannot escape this assembling of subjective elements with objective ones (i.e., how could we study any physical reality without taking into account time and space?). Thus, anything we "know" most certainly results from the various fictions we invent to account for time and space (most of which have no basis whatsoever in reality). Given this, it seems imprudent to claim that any one epistemelogical method of determining truth stands superior to another. Indeed, such thinking announces one's epistemic naivety. manna
• 

  Abaddon

  seethesky

  Time and space do not, as far as we know, constitute matter.

  Well, if there IS zero-point energy (it's considered a good bet), add in good old E=Mc(squared) and your starting premise is wrong.

  Despite the near-universal assumption that time and space have bases in reality, those concepts do not exist absent a consciousness to experience them.

  I think you mean 'they do not exist in the absence of a consciousness to experience them'; please correct me if my correcting of your syntax/grammar. Assuming this to be your point, again, wrong.

  It's like saying a tree falling in a forest with no one there to hear it makes no sound. Of course it makes sound, it cannot not make a sound as sound is dependent on air molecules banging together, and they do this without observers.

  All thoughts (studies, etc.) about the physical world, however, must take time and space into consideration and by doing so combine subjectve elements (time and space) with objective ones (e.g., the motion of actual matter such as proteins or flood waters).

  Having built a foundation on bad science, you start on the walls of a crack-pot theory.

  To make "workable" sense of our world, it apears we cannot escape this assembling of subjective elements with objective ones (i.e., how could we study any physical reality without taking into account time and space?).

  ... there, that's the damp course put in ...

  Thus, anything we "know" most certainly results from the various fictions we invent to account for time and space (most of which have no basis whatsoever in reality). Given this, it seems imprudent to claim that any one epistemelogical method of determining truth stands superior to another. Indeed, such thinking announces one's epistemic naivety. manna

  Look, there is no better test of reality than a ten-ton truck moving at high spped. If time isn't 'real' in any convincing frame of reference, then anyone ever who stood in the path of the truck (even before and after it exisetd) would be killed by it. Time is real enough to stop everything happening at once...