Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 9 July 2011

Hi

Sorry to bother you, and no need to reply unless you want, but there are a few recent threads on my talk page which mention you and which you might be interested in, particularly where I just posted a reply to Kww. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Kww is right in that I don't get it, but he should not think of me as an editor. I depend on my reputation to help readers have a sense of how to value what I say. That is a necessary standard practice if reliable information is to be exchanged. If I say something that is stupid or mean-spirited, I expect it to have negative affect on my reputation. At the same time, some people simply do not like me or what I say. That is also normal. When dealing with screen names, I do not know who they are or their qualifications. When they are mean-spirited, as Kww and SA have been toward me on many occasions, I have no choice but to fight back or leave. If I am outnumbered, as I always am, and if they have the ear of management, which they definitely do, then I can only leave.

Misplaced Pages has a profound influence, especially on the paranormal subjects I study. I can ignore that influence or I can attempt to deal with it, which is one of my duties as direct of the ATransC (was AA-EVP). An obvious approach to informing my readers about how Misplaced Pages is hindering our ability to study these subjects is to explain how articles are written. We do that in context and with references as we would any dissertation. My explaining that an editor has unilaterally called EVP noise or has called me (and people in my field) waccos by providing a reference, and if that reference includes the name of the author, which it is supposed to, then I am not attacking that author.

This whole issue of my user page has been about people saying things, my pointing that out and then those people crying about how I am attacking them. The one still positive thing about Misplaced Pages is that it is a public forum with a long memory. It is mostly controlled by virtual people saying whatever they please. The social norms developed amongst the editors makes insults and lies okay so long as it is toward the minority. They should not be dismayed by our complaints.

Once again, thanks for the notice. I know that many editors want Misplaced Pages to be an agent for positive change. I would not have spent so long trying to make that so if I did not want the same. There are many problems with paranormal subjects, but Misplaced Pages is not the elected agent to fix them. All the articles should do is tell what the subject is about, not if it is right or not. (By the way, I see Nealparr's template:paranormal is all about telling what is wrong with Misplaced Pages and that makes social engineering apparent policy; however, I will address my concerns with that outside of Misplaced Pages. Tom Butler (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your feedback on my Spiritualism edit

Hi,

Based on your feedback I've changed the wording about the Spiritualists' Principles - please have a look.

Adrian-from-london (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Any advice or comments on recent edits on the faith healing page?

Hi,

You've recently commented on my talk page so I hope you don't object to me seeking help. As noted in the edit history of the Faith Healing page, there have been a number of edits of the Spiritual Healing section (moved from the Esoteric Energy page). Any advice you can offer which helps me make the best use of time and resources would be very useful.

Many thanks,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The first concern is that spiritual healing as practiced in Spiritualism is not faith healing. The two are distinct in that faith healing admittedly depends on the person's faith in prayer for intercession of divine will. In spiritual healing, and all of the modalities depend on the operation of subtle energy such as therapeutic touch, distance healing, Rekie and such. In that regard, the statement in the opening that: "Healing based on faith is also used by practitioners of other beliefs and religious heritages. Efforts at healing by Therapeutic Touch and distance healing practices such as those practiced by practitioners of Japanese tradition of Reiki and the Chinese tradition of qigong would fall in this category." is incorrect, as success or failure of the practice has nothing to do wit the faith of the receiver.

In Spiritualism, healing is seen as two distinct forms. One is flat out energy healing and is thought to be the influence of one person's auric or vital energy on another (subtle energy). Mesmerism may have been a precursor to that view in modern times, but I think there is danger in associating with that. Keeping to modern times, it is the psi influence of one person thought of good will on another. There is no faith involved, only practiced expression of intention.

The second form of healing in Spiritualism, the one practiced to prove continuity of life, is specifically spiritual healing or healing by the expression of intention by our friends in the etheric ("spirits" in the vernacular) as facilitated by a medium. When I approach a sitter in my healing chair, I will probably touch them and intend that my vitality be available to them, but if our understanding of energy healing is correct, touch or proximity is not really necessary. I will ask my friends and helpers with whom I commune to use me as a clear and open channel for the expression of their energy, ability and intention for my sitter ... for his or her "highest good." Believe me, the faith involved is secondary. It is a practiced ability to manage energy and accept communion with other entities that makes this work.

Of course all of this needs current references that are acceptable. Stability of a wiki article depends on references that skeptics and cranks cannot dispute. That means that there is usually a lot of compromising terminology. For the benefit of Spiritualism, it may be better to say as little as possible.

I would avoid using reference 31. The term “Shaman” pretty much replaced “Witchdoctor” as people become more familiar with the practices. Witchdoctor is Hollywood. While the witches were being burned in Europe, oriental practitioners were developing all sorts of energy healing techniques without being called witches.

“healing therapies were based on a body, spirit or mind basis rather than the Holistic approach previously adopted.” This is kind of double talk. Body, mind and spirit is the holistic approach.

“but this sensation could also derive from the heat radiating from the healers' body.” Is a criticism that should be in a separate section.

From the article:

Spiritualism and spiritual healing Spiritualism is a system of belief which holds as a tenet the belief that contact is possible between the living and the spirits of the dead. Spiritualists practice a form of energy healing referred to as “spiritual healing”, which may be a form of energy healing between the practitioner and the sitter. More commonly, the practitioner is seen as a conduit through which healers in the etheric may being healing energy to the sitter. This is seen as spiritual healing and it involves a cooperating “healer” in spirit, a person to receive the healing energy and a spiritual healer, who is the medium though which the healing energy is directed. Spiritualists may combine spiritual healing with conventional medical therapies.

Spiritual healing is based on the belief that a healer is able to channel healing energy into the person seeking help by different methods.

Shamanism can be considered an early form of Spiritual Healing in that a belief in spirits was incorporated into healing practices.

It is claimed that this "healing energy" may sometimes be perceived as a feeling of heat. Spiritual healing is listed on the website of the charity Macmillan Cancer Support, where it is classified as a "mind therapy". Macmillan say that healing "may be able to help people feel better and reduce symptoms or emotional distress ... or ... reduce side effects caused by cancer treatment." Unlike faith healing, the religion of the patient or healer is not considered relevant.

These are just points to consider. I would try to have a separate article for spiritual healing. There will never be a foundation in science for faith healing because it is so subjective. However, spiritual healing is being studied see: http://atransc.org/articles/research_in_news.htm Tom Butler (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal website

Hi,

I thought you'd be interested in this article.

Regards, Adrian-from-london (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

From what we understand, that kind of communication is very rare. The "probe" sounds like something Digital Dowsing would come up with. Most of their devices detect changes in the ambient electrical or EMF to either select words from a library or trigger a speech synthesizer. Otherwise, I do not know.

There is a norm of effectiveness in Instrumental TransCommunication that, while there are no rules about how good communication might be, extraordinary communication necessarily raises flags. One of the things that is becoming apparent is that faith in technology makes devices excellent crutches for other forms of phenomena. See http://atransc.org/articles/presi-bacci.htm. Bacci does work with EVP but is clearly function as a physical medium. Instead of using a trumpet as a crutch for an ectoplasmic voice box to produce direct voice, he is using a radio. We have seen this in a number of instances, but they are very rare and often the practitioner is unaware that it is not EVP. Still very astounding, but studied with a slightly different yardstick.

Thanks for the link. I will keep an eye out. Tom Butler (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The mainstream source is precisly about pseudoscience.

The serious matters that are a threat to public health are:

"The ‘Keep libel laws out of science’ campaign was launched on 4 June 2009, in the UK. Simon Singh, a science writer who alerted the public about the lack of evidence supporting chiropractic treatments, was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (Sense about Science, 2009). Similar examples can be found in almost any country. In Spain, another science writer, Luis Alfonso Ga´mez, was also sued after he alerted the public on the lack of evidence supporting the claims of a popular pseudoscientist (Ga´mez, 2007). In the USA, 54% of the population believes in psychic healing and 36% believe in telepathy (Newport & Strausberg, 2001). In Europe, the statistics are not too different. According to the Special Eurobarometer on Science and Technology (European Commission, 2005), and just to mention a few examples, a high percentage of Europeans consider homeopathy (34%) and horoscopes (13%) to be good science. Moreover, ‘the past decade has witnessed acceleration both in consumer interest in and use of CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practices and/or products. Surveys indicate that those with the most serious and debilitating medical conditions, such as cancer, chronic pain, and HIV, tend to be the most frequent users of the CAM practices’ (White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy, 2002, p. 15). Elements of the latest USA presidential campaign have also been frequently cited as examples of how superstitious beliefs of all types are still happily alive and promoted in our Western societies (e.g., Katz, 2008). On another, quite dramatic example, Science Magazine recently alerted about the increase in ‘stem cell tourism’, which consists of travelling to another country in the hope of finding a stem cell-based treatment for a disease when such a treatment has not yet been approved in one’s own country (Kiatpongsan & Sipp, 2009). This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

The threat to public health is a statement made as a conclusion rather than an assumption. This is indeed about the topic pseudoscience according to the source. For example, "This being the current state of affairs it is not easy to counteract the power and credibility of pseudoscience."

One of the main pseudoscience points from full text is: "As preoccupied and active as many governmental and sceptical organizations are in their fight against pseudoscience, quackery, superstitions and related problems, their efforts in making the public understand the scientific facts required to make good and informed decisions are not always as effective as they should be. Pseudoscience can be defined as any belief or practice that pretends to be scientific but lacks supporting evidence. Quackery is a particular type of pseudoscience that refers to medical treatments. Superstitions are irrational beliefs that normally involve cause–effect relations that are not real, as those found in pseudoscience and quackery. These are a serious matter of public health and educational policy in which many variables are involved."

The authors summarised the public health issue in the abstract. According to the source pseudoscience is a serious matter that threatens public health. It is WP:OR if we don't summarise the main pseudoscience points because it would be taking the source out of context.

From abstract: "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious problems that threaten public health and in which many variables are involved."

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

As a point of fact, there are hundreds of WP:V-compliant sources on the subject. However, the Matute source is peer-reviewed and should be given WP:DUEWEIGHT. The text and source meets WP:SOURCES. It would be a violation of NPOV to imply a serious dispute where there is none. The text does not need to be attributed becuase editors disgree with researchers. I think that a summary of Matutue et al. does contribute a lot to Pseudoscience#Demographics, Pseudoscience#Psychological explanations and Pseudoscience#Health and education implications. The text passes V. Please don't tag sourced text again. This was not removing noise by the way. QuackGuru (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)