Energy healing / Bio healing / Reiki

Littlekittylou

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Of the handful of people I've met who'd fit into that category, it definitely seems to aid in making them more happy/cheery/friendly people/personalities - which makes sense in a lot of ways, as I can see how such beliefs would be comforting (ya though, I could see how people could take it too far, and invest too much of their personality into it, to the point that it could damage them).

They, surprisingly, seemed reasonably skeptical too open to others views and not pushing their own - though the skepticism stretched a little too far, to being skeptical of science/evidence itself, to some degree

It's not something I can relate to, but I find it kind of fascinating in a way, trying to figure out how people come to believe some of the stuff, and why sometimes they can be so averse to research/evidence - you come across the same kind of thinking, in debates on a lot of topics on Boards, too, and it always makes me really curious as to what's behind it all in motivation/psychology.

Actually a few years ago. A college mate of mine had a terrible tragedy befall her family. Her mother was very ill for a long time and ended her own life after a long battle with mental and physical ill health. It really traumatized her and she started unbeknownst to us to see a psychic. When I found out I told her that she needed to stop immediately and seek couselling. Others were of a differing opinion. They thought it was harmless and be of great comfort to her. I knew differently. You see when you are vulnerable you a prone mentally to exhaustion manipulation and losing touch with your own will to your hopes and destructive emotions.

She kept going to see the 'psychic' compulsively. She was fleeced out of a lot of money. We ended up successfully convincing her not to go anymore. I wrote a letter to the guards about the 'psychic' guy. I don't know if anything was able to be done or not. They confirmed they got the letter that was all I heard.

As far as I know she never went again. But I lost contact with her. She sort of fell away from us all she didn't graduate.

If you are staring at a card or a picture it's what your mind tells you about the picture or what the picture tells you about your mind. Like an ink blot it can be a eureka moment. It helps you connect with other parts of the brain that people use drugs to get at. It's very different from using the ego to try and get what you want from other people.

Littlekittylou

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Of the handful of people I've met who'd fit into that category, it definitely seems to aid in making them more happy/cheery/friendly people/personalities - which makes sense in a lot of ways, as I can see how such beliefs would be comforting (ya though, I could see how people could take it too far, and invest too much of their personality into it, to the point that it could damage them).

They, surprisingly, seemed reasonably skeptical too open to others views and not pushing their own - though the skepticism stretched a little too far, to being skeptical of science/evidence itself, to some degree

It's not something I can relate to, but I find it kind of fascinating in a way, trying to figure out how people come to believe some of the stuff, and why sometimes they can be so averse to research/evidence - you come across the same kind of thinking, in debates on a lot of topics on Boards, too, and it always makes me really curious as to what's behind it all in motivation/psychology.

Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein did a lot of essays on reasonable doubt vrs the problem of skepticism and other minds.

Science is that which can be falsified. It presupposes that reality exists and your senses are not insane. The problem is A skeptical hypothesis is a hypothetical situation which can be used in an argument forskepticism about a particular claim or class of claims. Usually the hypothesis posits the existence of a deceptive power that deceives our senses and undermines the justification of knowledge otherwise accepted as justified.This can be used abusively in arguments either for science or against it. Meditations on First philosophy by Descartes was the first skeptical hypotheses in western modern philosophy. It proposed the hypotheses what if there is a demon making the world up and it is all an illusion? It's like the matrix hypotheses or the brain in a vat hypotheses. It would seem stupid. But it's tool that was used to answer a lot of philosophical and scientific problems. What if the world and I am not real?
I think therefore I am was his answer but it did not solve the problem of other minds. The solipsistic hypotheses was not addressed until much later by Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein. And it does not fall into Solipsism is not a falsifiable hypothesis as described by karl Popper or Lakatos there does not seem to be an imaginable disproof. Not even the complete death, i.e., annihilation, of the solipsist could falsify his belief in solipsism because he could not analyze that observation. It can't really be disproven because it can't be proven.

The private language argument introduced by Wittgenstein in his later work, especially in the Philosophical Investigations. The argument was central to philosophical discussion in the second half of the 20th century, and continues to arouse interest. The argument is supposed to show that the idea of a language understandable by only a single individual is incoherent. Although we do as Chomsky argued as infants possess a hard wired syntax ready to learn language it still needs to come from outside somewhere and another mind. And so logically outside somewhere needs to exists and so do other minds.

The difference is philosophy will use logical formula to falsify and thus prove anything it claims. Beyond that philosophy presents hypothesis or problems and questions to be used in discourse. It is makes no claims with these.

Wowsers ...sorry to go on.

I did a philosophy degree.

Littlekittylou

It comes into play in a lot of legal arguments about reasonable doubt etc. They say a philosophy degree is a good basis for a law degree.

braddun

if you believe it will work,it will work if you don't it will not

Littlekittylou

braddun wrote: »

if you believe it will work,it will work if you don't it will not

Or sometimes people believe it is working even it isn't.

mcmoustache

braddun wrote: »

if you believe it will work,it will work if you don't it will not

PLACEBO!! Sing it with me... PLACEBO!!!

Calibos

braddun wrote: »

if you believe it will work,it will work if you don't it will not

Most people believe vitamin C will cure a cold. Sure enough the cold is gone in about 2 weeks. How's that for confirmation!!













A cold runs it's course all by itself in ......about 2 weeks....

Littlekittylou

Littlekittylou wrote: »

You do realize that anyone can set themselves up as a therapist or counsellor in Ireland too. There is nothing stopping you from calling yourself a CBT therapist.

Nothing at all, except psychologist is a protected term, unlike psychotherapist for example, and I would suggest anyone needing treatment seeks it from either an MD or clinical psychologist.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Jesus :mad: guys like that should be named and shamed. People like that can waste years of a vulnerable persons life (or worse), trying to recover from a serious personal issue, but wasting their time with someone like that instead of getting proper help.

Unfortunately, the same can apply even to the CBT guys, as they may not be properly qualified (easy to get certs for a lot of things like that, after just taking a short course - very poor regulation), so worth thoroughly researching them first.

Make sure the CBT therapist is a qualified psychologist and you're safe enough.

Titles like therapist, psychotherapist, counsellor, healer and other variations are a warning sign. I know of one person practising a form of chiropracy in Ireland who calls it by another term and uses the title Dr, although his doctorate was awarded by mail from an uncredited college after an unspecified course of work, and his particular 'speciality' was one he qualified in after he did a six week course, devised by himself, and with him as the only student. He went on to offer the course to others, frighteningly.

I reported this guy too but since he steered clear of protected titles he was immune from penalty.

Nutritionists are another one, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dietician is the protected title you need to see before you put your trust in someone in that sphere.

srsly78

Littlekittylou wrote: »

It comes into play in a lot of legal arguments about reasonable doubt etc. They say a philosophy degree is a good basis for a law degree.

If you studied natural philosophy then you would know all that stuff is rubbish. In particular that our senses are very fallible.

TheBeardedLady

I've never been much of a believer in all this stuff anyway but it seems to be gaining in popularity, which doesn't make any sense - surely we should be becoming cynical about this stuff as science advances instead of less? Since I started my psychology course, I'm even more cynical than I was and realise just how important empirical evidence is, particularly when it comes to dealing with people.

There's a great book if anyone is interested that I'm reading at the moment that can be read by a layperson and it goes into the harmfulness of therapies based on case studies and testimonials and is a great introduction to psychology:

http://www.amazon.com/Think-Straight-About-Psychology-Edition/dp/0205914128

ToddyDoody

€60 a session... I practice Reiki myself

suicide_circus

Pure scam artists

Gongoozler

Counsellors and psychotherapists will be regulated by Coru down the line.

As will Dietitians. But for now that's not even a protected title. I'd like to see how much business I could get calling myself one or a nutritionist.

Osteopathy is the latest trend. Complete bullsh*t.