6 ms·

Apologies if I'm missing something--what is this doing in the front page of HN? This person claims he can see spirits perturbing the mentally ill. He claims he

by apeace 10y ago

Apologies if I'm missing something--what is this doing in the front page of HN? This person claims he can see spirits perturbing the mentally ill. He claims he has the cure for schizophrenia. What kind of science or unbiased analysis is going on here that is OT for HN?

metaphorm 10y ago
you're absolutely sure that there are no spirits?
- apeace 10y ago
  What would move my needle is reproducible results, i.e. science. For example, have a shaman go into a room and describe the spirit he sees. Then have another shaman go into the room, and see if his description matches. Or, write about how many schizophrenic people this shaman has actually cured. Interview the patients, do a profile of their lives before and after, and explain the process that was used. While this article is interesting from a cultural perspective, I still don't see how it is OT for HN.
  - metaphorm 10y ago
    a psychiatrist goes into a room with a patient, has a brief conversation with him and then comes out and says "I see schizophrenia." a second psychiatrist goes in and has a conversation with the same patient and says "yes I concur, I see schizophrenia." what did they see?
mikelyons 10y ago
watch out for dogmatic belief in science and unbiased analysis. Check out the mechanics of belief
- thescribe 10y ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Barring that I will send you an immortality potion that keeps the grim reaper away.
- smohare 10y ago
  You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of science as soon as they speak about "belief in science".
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    Can you, personally, demonstrate that the atomic theory of matter is accurate? Maybe you can, I dunno, but most of us can't. We've had it explained in a way that makes at least superficial sense, but we don't grasp it on a deep level. Yet we accept it as true. We trust that the people who really did the research knew what they were doing. We believe it. What would you call that?
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      The difference is that if you really wanted, you could.
  - sideshowb 10y ago
    Careful. For sure, Science, unlike dogma, prides itself on changing belief in the face of conflicting evidence. In theory, anyway. In practice, I have a PhD in Computer Science and Geography. Do I understand climate models? No, they're not my field. Do I have the time to verify them? Certainly not. How do I know then that the field of climate science is getting it right? I have to trust the institutional process, which as Kuhn points out is far from perfect. If they're getting it wrong, it's not likely to be me that figures it out, so for the time being the rational course of action is to accept the consensus of experts. tldr; belief in science. Though cynically speaking you're right, people who trot out that phrase usually don't understand the above.
  - mikelyons 10y ago
    You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of the mechanics of belief when they don't think it applies to science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
- lutusp 10y ago
  > watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    > Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.
    - lutusp 10y ago
      > The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
      - pmoriarty 10y ago
- ramblerman 10y ago
  I think Occams razor applies. We may not fully understand insanity, and morally the act of segmenting these people from society can be debated. That doesn't mean we have to jump on the first outlandish theory of them channeling the dead because it 'sounds cool'
  - hutzlibu 10y ago
    No, but thinking about strange outlandish theorys - who apparently work for them - can help improve our model.
mcphilip 10y ago
I found the shaman's perspective fascinating from an evolutionary psychological point of view. Cultures have had to decide how to treat the mentally ill long before science was around to try and explain it. The shaman's perspective also had some interesting food for thought about the implications of western society's lack of ritual for the right of passage into adulthood.
gosheroo 10y ago
'Spiritual emergency' and 'mental illness' are both pretty weird concepts. The latter, for instance, is a bit like attributing software bugs to hardware faults, isn't it?
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
What you might be missing is the fact that the condition and diagnosis of schizophrenia is completely subjective; meaning there is no objective science surrounding schizophrenia and many other such conditions (i.e. depression, bipolar).

by apeace 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

you're absolutely sure that there are no spirits?

apeace 10y ago
What would move my needle is reproducible results, i.e. science. For example, have a shaman go into a room and describe the spirit he sees. Then have another shaman go into the room, and see if his description matches. Or, write about how many schizophrenic people this shaman has actually cured. Interview the patients, do a profile of their lives before and after, and explain the process that was used. While this article is interesting from a cultural perspective, I still don't see how it is OT for HN.
- metaphorm 10y ago
  a psychiatrist goes into a room with a patient, has a brief conversation with him and then comes out and says "I see schizophrenia." a second psychiatrist goes in and has a conversation with the same patient and says "yes I concur, I see schizophrenia." what did they see?

mikelyons 10y ago

watch out for dogmatic belief in science and unbiased analysis. Check out the mechanics of belief

thescribe 10y ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Barring that I will send you an immortality potion that keeps the grim reaper away.
smohare 10y ago
You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of science as soon as they speak about "belief in science".
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Can you, personally, demonstrate that the atomic theory of matter is accurate? Maybe you can, I dunno, but most of us can't. We've had it explained in a way that makes at least superficial sense, but we don't grasp it on a deep level. Yet we accept it as true. We trust that the people who really did the research knew what they were doing. We believe it. What would you call that?
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    The difference is that if you really wanted, you could.
- sideshowb 10y ago
  Careful. For sure, Science, unlike dogma, prides itself on changing belief in the face of conflicting evidence. In theory, anyway. In practice, I have a PhD in Computer Science and Geography. Do I understand climate models? No, they're not my field. Do I have the time to verify them? Certainly not. How do I know then that the field of climate science is getting it right? I have to trust the institutional process, which as Kuhn points out is far from perfect. If they're getting it wrong, it's not likely to be me that figures it out, so for the time being the rational course of action is to accept the consensus of experts. tldr; belief in science. Though cynically speaking you're right, people who trot out that phrase usually don't understand the above.
- mikelyons 10y ago
  You can always spot someone who has near zero comprehension of the mechanics of belief when they don't think it applies to science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FtVLnmuJzg
lutusp 10y ago
> watch out for dogmatic belief in science "Dogmatic belief in science" is an oxymoron. Science is skepticism defined. Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. In fact, the existence of belief is why science exists -- it's a tool to to overcome belief. If we were cured of belief, what we now call "science" would be called "thinking".
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > Science doesn't rely on belief, it relies on evidence. Belief plays no part. The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true, and you need not understand or question it. That's dogmatic belief in science.
  - lutusp 10y ago
    > The Platonic ideal of Science may exist in a realm of pure logic, but scientists and students are human and always subject to biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings. Yes, and that's why science exists. If there were no "biases, preferences, hunches, and gut feelings," there would be no need for science -- we would be able to think rationally, we would have no need for the unnatural discipline imposed by science. > It's quite possible for misguided science education to convey the lesson that anything a scientist says is true ... That's not science, that's religion. Science is based on skepticism and the rejection of all authority. The motto of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific society still in existence, is nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it." The Society explains their motto this way: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment." > That's dogmatic belief in science. A dogmatic belief in science is something that fresh religious converts experience, and they've entirely missed the boat. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
ramblerman 10y ago
I think Occams razor applies. We may not fully understand insanity, and morally the act of segmenting these people from society can be debated. That doesn't mean we have to jump on the first outlandish theory of them channeling the dead because it 'sounds cool'
- hutzlibu 10y ago
  No, but thinking about strange outlandish theorys - who apparently work for them - can help improve our model.

mcphilip 10y ago

I found the shaman's perspective fascinating from an evolutionary psychological point of view. Cultures have had to decide how to treat the mentally ill long before science was around to try and explain it. The shaman's perspective also had some interesting food for thought about the implications of western society's lack of ritual for the right of passage into adulthood.

gosheroo 10y ago

'Spiritual emergency' and 'mental illness' are both pretty weird concepts. The latter, for instance, is a bit like attributing software bugs to hardware faults, isn't it?

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

What you might be missing is the fact that the condition and diagnosis of schizophrenia is completely subjective; meaning there is no objective science surrounding schizophrenia and many other such conditions (i.e. depression, bipolar).