5 ms·

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. Nobody is dismissing proof

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. Nobody is dismissing proof here. They're only dismissive of the extraordinary claims that an immeasurable energy somehow inherent to some things has any effect beyond essentially the placebo effect. After all, there hasn't been any evidence which showed differently. If you have some studies showing actual results beyond placebo's baseline, we'd all be ecstatic for the new knowledge

dmos62 7y ago
It merits skepticism. But, is it a lack of the scientific method that's motivating the backlash? Or, is it that the claim falls within an unpopular marginality? The obvious rebut is that it's unpopular, because it lacks scientific method. In other words, mainstream is mainstream due to merit and can be used as source of truth. If anyone takes this view, I hope they're very conscious of it, because in my opinion this viewpoint can't last long.
- hnhg 7y ago
  You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.
  - dmos62 7y ago
    You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.
    - hnhg 7y ago
      Yeah, I did. In that case, I agree.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated. And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism. Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense. Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-...
- hnhg 7y ago
  Please don't fall into ad hominem attacks. I don't think it helps the conversation here. I took a look at the study linked and I could see some problems in experiment design. There are so many confounding factors that aren't controlled for. [edit: An experiment like this would have to be pretty big in scope and try to randomise for control groups accordingly. I personally would like to see that to see what's genuinely resulting in these effects, no matter what it is. You might not believe that though, which is your own bias.]
dna_polymerase 7y ago
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No, they require the same evidence as any other claim, but none was provided.
gerbilly 7y ago
And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?
- conjectures 7y ago
  It's extraordinary in the sense that there is no known mechanism for it to work. E.g. soap kills viruses by dissolving them, some painkillers work by blocking transmission of signals along nerves, radiotherapy kills cells in the blast zone. Other than through establishing a psychological effect around 'someone cares', there's simply no known way of positive thoughts in one person's head being transmitted down through the hands and directly doing some work on an illness. If there were, what is it: What kind of 'energy' do hands emit? How does the difference between Reiki hands and non-Reiki hands manifest? How does that 'energy' selectively effect diseases? How does thought modulate the diseases the 'energy' effects. E.g. how is the Reiki hand energy signature a function of the targeted disease? What's the molecular pathway by which the 'energy' improves the target ailment? If it's just regular 'energy' why can't we copy it with a machine and play it back en masse?
  - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
    Well... That sounds testable. Use 10 people who have chronic pain who report pain relief with hands-on reiki. As for the test: Hands-off reiki vs hands-off no reiki (person who isn't trained in reiki present) vs nothing We should see significant reporting of gains with the hands-off reiki, and should see no gains with #2 or #3... Just because we can't see this assumed energy doesn't mean we can't measure it somehow.
    - tonyarkles 7y ago
      There’s the rub though: what you’re proposing isn’t measuring “subtle energy” at all. It’s measuring whether or not there’s some phenomenon (possibly psychological) that brings pain relief. Your proposed test is only measuring the effect (which is a valuable test!), but not providing any insight into the mechanism of action.
cat199 7y ago
> None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. this itself is an affirmative negation with no supporting evidence. at best we should be ambivalent from an empirical standpoint. side note: why do strict rationalists love using the 'royal we'

dmos62 7y ago

It merits skepticism. But, is it a lack of the scientific method that's motivating the backlash? Or, is it that the claim falls within an unpopular marginality? The obvious rebut is that it's unpopular, because it lacks scientific method. In other words, mainstream is mainstream due to merit and can be used as source of truth. If anyone takes this view, I hope they're very conscious of it, because in my opinion this viewpoint can't last long.

hnhg 7y ago
You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.
- dmos62 7y ago
  You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.
  - hnhg 7y ago
    Yeah, I did. In that case, I agree.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated. And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in an article like this one which suggests the effects can't simply be waved away as placebo. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31638407 Then you'd end with a restatement of the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" saw and would retreat happy and contented that you had once again vanquished the evil dragon of irrationality with your objectively informed skepticism. Unfortunately none of this is even remotely scientific, except in a bandwagon cargo cult sense. Science is not about protecting the tribe against unacceptably dissident world views, but about dealing calmly and objectively with things that actually happen - especially if you don't understand them. It's not about trying to persuade yourself that they don't happen, because they can't possibly, because you already know for sure what's possible and what isn't with unshakeable 100% confidence, and therefore there can't possibly be anything to explain. QED. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-...

hnhg 7y ago
Please don't fall into ad hominem attacks. I don't think it helps the conversation here. I took a look at the study linked and I could see some problems in experiment design. There are so many confounding factors that aren't controlled for. [edit: An experiment like this would have to be pretty big in scope and try to randomise for control groups accordingly. I personally would like to see that to see what's genuinely resulting in these effects, no matter what it is. You might not believe that though, which is your own bias.]

dna_polymerase 7y ago

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No, they require the same evidence as any other claim, but none was provided.

gerbilly 7y ago

And who's the authority on what's extraordinary then?

conjectures 7y ago
It's extraordinary in the sense that there is no known mechanism for it to work. E.g. soap kills viruses by dissolving them, some painkillers work by blocking transmission of signals along nerves, radiotherapy kills cells in the blast zone. Other than through establishing a psychological effect around 'someone cares', there's simply no known way of positive thoughts in one person's head being transmitted down through the hands and directly doing some work on an illness. If there were, what is it: What kind of 'energy' do hands emit? How does the difference between Reiki hands and non-Reiki hands manifest? How does that 'energy' selectively effect diseases? How does thought modulate the diseases the 'energy' effects. E.g. how is the Reiki hand energy signature a function of the targeted disease? What's the molecular pathway by which the 'energy' improves the target ailment? If it's just regular 'energy' why can't we copy it with a machine and play it back en masse?
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Well... That sounds testable. Use 10 people who have chronic pain who report pain relief with hands-on reiki. As for the test: Hands-off reiki vs hands-off no reiki (person who isn't trained in reiki present) vs nothing We should see significant reporting of gains with the hands-off reiki, and should see no gains with #2 or #3... Just because we can't see this assumed energy doesn't mean we can't measure it somehow.
  - tonyarkles 7y ago
    There’s the rub though: what you’re proposing isn’t measuring “subtle energy” at all. It’s measuring whether or not there’s some phenomenon (possibly psychological) that brings pain relief. Your proposed test is only measuring the effect (which is a valuable test!), but not providing any insight into the mechanism of action.

cat199 7y ago

> None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. this itself is an affirmative negation with no supporting evidence. at best we should be ambivalent from an empirical standpoint. side note: why do strict rationalists love using the 'royal we'