4 ms·

In the context of how I wrote it, I meant if you're providing me an explanation/solution to a problem, you better be able to prove that is indeed the case. Tell

by chime 16y ago

In the context of how I wrote it, I meant if you're providing me an explanation/solution to a problem, you better be able to prove that is indeed the case. Telling me that "concentrate on your chakras to reduce your stress" won't cut it. Mentioning the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda or translations of it, isn't good enough either. As far as I know no chakras have been found during any dissection nor have we found any evidence of them indirectly. So any claims made on the basis of chakras are invalid as far as I'm concerned. I would be open to interpreting chakras as aspects of our personality if someone can provide a reasonable basis for them.

psyklic 16y ago
Ah ha - but there are so many things that cannot be "proven" to be true, yet are still helpful. Stress relief techniques are a case in point - most of us probably try lots of techniques and ultimately end up using what works best for us. There are also complications - e.g. meditation might work best for most people, but I personally may not have the time (or the patience) to do it properly. Hence, I am fine with being given a non-scientific list of stress relief techniques - as long as they are not harmful or time-consuming, then I would be willing to try them.
- chime 16y ago
  > Stress relief techniques are a case in point - most of us probably try lots of techniques and ultimately end up using what works best for us. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could input variables like your personality, lifestyle, and preferences and get a reliable list of stress-relief techniques along with the probability that they'll work for you? Maybe it's impossible with our current standard of knowledge but surely you can imagine an advanced civilization that can do it by simulating "you" inside a virtual machine or just solving trillions of linear equations for every variable that defines you. What isn't provable today may be provable (within bounds) tomorrow. Unfortunately, the problem today is that the moment someone shows that X works for Y in condition Z, everyone starts trying to sell X to everyone else for every problem.
  - psyklic 16y ago
    First, no physical science has "provable" results - they are merely correlational. Second, such a study would have a gargantuan cost, merely for results that would have limited practical use. An expert in stress relief can probably come up with a very accurate list of techniques for someone that would help them out. Using your approach only gives a small optimization on this. However, scientists should investigate why stress relief techniques work, and that investigation may overlap a bit.
brudgers 16y ago
>" As far as I know no chakras have been found during any dissection nor have we found any evidence of them indirectly. So any claims made on the basis of chakras are invalid as far as I'm concerned." Were someone to dissect you, they would not find your concern, or any other mental state (or your personality either). However, it would be absurd to argue that therefore you have no concern on that basis. "Concentrate on your breathing to reduce your stress" suffers from the same problem. Upon dissection, there would be no breathing. Furthermore, "concentrate" is no less problematic than "chakra" within a logical-positivist framework. None of which is to deny that many life coaches may be FOS -- I found Ehrenreich's description of them in Bait and Switch consistent with my observations.
pella 16y ago
> As far as I know no chakras have been found during any dissection nor have we found any evidence of them indirectly. interesting: Prospective Tests on Biological Models of Acupuncture eCAM 2009 6(1):31-39; doi:10.1093/ecam/nem122 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/31 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/31 see "Figure 3": http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/6/1/31/F3 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/6/1/31/F3 "Figure 3. Just as the distribution of pheochromocytoma correlates with the distribution of sympathetic ganglions, the distribution of germ cell tumors correlates with undifferentiated cells in human body which are likely to be involved in the regulation of growth control and physiology as part of the ‘inner meridian system’. This distribution also correlates well with the chakra system used in yoga and acupuncture, suggesting a unified structural basis for chakra system and meridian system"
rfrey 16y ago
I have no trouble with the scientific method, in fact I'm a science fanboy. I do maintain some discomfort with your <edit: my interpretation of your> stance though. I hope my first point doesn't come across as nitpicking - it's not meant to. I bring it up because it seems to be the primary way that people who think they understand science, but don't, perceive science. It is that you seem to value things that can be proven true. Nothing in science can be proven true - that's why it's so uncomfortable to so many people, and in fact is why the scientific method was such an epistemological break from the past. All we can do is disprove things. My problem with holistic medicine or chakras or chi isn't that dissection hasn't found evidence. It's that the theory/model/worldview isn't formulated in a way that can be falsified and therefore the the views have no meaning in a scientific context. Note that I didn't say they were false from a scientist's view. They simply aren't meaningful - they're content free. A scientist wouldn't actually say they're true or false: a scientist would say that science has nothing to say about them. The second issue I have with your position is related to the first point but slightly different: I think it's incorrect to label as false models that have no evidence. For example, say a holistic medicine practitioner relents and formulates one of his practices in a falsifiable way. Tests are done and no beneficial effect is shown. I think the appropriate response is that the model is unlikely to be true, not that the model is false. We simply haven't disproved the null hypothesis yet - that's not to say it won't or can't be done. The scientific method just adds 9s to the certainty. It is never certain. In short, a scientist is profoundly and radically humble.

by chime 16y ago

psyklic 16y ago

Ah ha - but there are so many things that cannot be "proven" to be true, yet are still helpful. Stress relief techniques are a case in point - most of us probably try lots of techniques and ultimately end up using what works best for us. There are also complications - e.g. meditation might work best for most people, but I personally may not have the time (or the patience) to do it properly. Hence, I am fine with being given a non-scientific list of stress relief techniques - as long as they are not harmful or time-consuming, then I would be willing to try them.

chime 16y ago
> Stress relief techniques are a case in point - most of us probably try lots of techniques and ultimately end up using what works best for us. Wouldn't it be awesome if you could input variables like your personality, lifestyle, and preferences and get a reliable list of stress-relief techniques along with the probability that they'll work for you? Maybe it's impossible with our current standard of knowledge but surely you can imagine an advanced civilization that can do it by simulating "you" inside a virtual machine or just solving trillions of linear equations for every variable that defines you. What isn't provable today may be provable (within bounds) tomorrow. Unfortunately, the problem today is that the moment someone shows that X works for Y in condition Z, everyone starts trying to sell X to everyone else for every problem.
- psyklic 16y ago
  First, no physical science has "provable" results - they are merely correlational. Second, such a study would have a gargantuan cost, merely for results that would have limited practical use. An expert in stress relief can probably come up with a very accurate list of techniques for someone that would help them out. Using your approach only gives a small optimization on this. However, scientists should investigate why stress relief techniques work, and that investigation may overlap a bit.

brudgers 16y ago

>" As far as I know no chakras have been found during any dissection nor have we found any evidence of them indirectly. So any claims made on the basis of chakras are invalid as far as I'm concerned." Were someone to dissect you, they would not find your concern, or any other mental state (or your personality either). However, it would be absurd to argue that therefore you have no concern on that basis. "Concentrate on your breathing to reduce your stress" suffers from the same problem. Upon dissection, there would be no breathing. Furthermore, "concentrate" is no less problematic than "chakra" within a logical-positivist framework. None of which is to deny that many life coaches may be FOS -- I found Ehrenreich's description of them in Bait and Switch consistent with my observations.

pella 16y ago

> As far as I know no chakras have been found during any dissection nor have we found any evidence of them indirectly. interesting: Prospective Tests on Biological Models of Acupuncture eCAM 2009 6(1):31-39; doi:10.1093/ecam/nem122 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/31 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/1/31 see "Figure 3": http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/6/1/31/F3 http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/6/1/31/F3 "Figure 3. Just as the distribution of pheochromocytoma correlates with the distribution of sympathetic ganglions, the distribution of germ cell tumors correlates with undifferentiated cells in human body which are likely to be involved in the regulation of growth control and physiology as part of the ‘inner meridian system’. This distribution also correlates well with the chakra system used in yoga and acupuncture, suggesting a unified structural basis for chakra system and meridian system"

rfrey 16y ago

I have no trouble with the scientific method, in fact I'm a science fanboy. I do maintain some discomfort with your <edit: my interpretation of your> stance though. I hope my first point doesn't come across as nitpicking - it's not meant to. I bring it up because it seems to be the primary way that people who think they understand science, but don't, perceive science. It is that you seem to value things that can be proven true. Nothing in science can be proven true - that's why it's so uncomfortable to so many people, and in fact is why the scientific method was such an epistemological break from the past. All we can do is disprove things. My problem with holistic medicine or chakras or chi isn't that dissection hasn't found evidence. It's that the theory/model/worldview isn't formulated in a way that can be falsified and therefore the the views have no meaning in a scientific context. Note that I didn't say they were false from a scientist's view. They simply aren't meaningful - they're content free. A scientist wouldn't actually say they're true or false: a scientist would say that science has nothing to say about them. The second issue I have with your position is related to the first point but slightly different: I think it's incorrect to label as false models that have no evidence. For example, say a holistic medicine practitioner relents and formulates one of his practices in a falsifiable way. Tests are done and no beneficial effect is shown. I think the appropriate response is that the model is unlikely to be true, not that the model is false. We simply haven't disproved the null hypothesis yet - that's not to say it won't or can't be done. The scientific method just adds 9s to the certainty. It is never certain. In short, a scientist is profoundly and radically humble.