Things you often Wonder

[A'Villan]

1 minute ago, coda said:

For someone with a prominent online profile it's strange he doesn't have one.

Thought the same thing!

[bickster]

I'll help you out there, it's because he's not a prominent scientist, he's written zero peer-reviewed science papers

[coda]

10 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Thought the same thing!

Maybe Dr Joe can create one just by thinking about it. 

[bickster]

58 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

gone on to law school and Ivy League as a result of their education

So they eventually went to a University, that's great

 

59 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

You say pseudo-science scam.

I do

 

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

You, as a scientist

I'm not, never claimed to be one either

 

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

Did you look into the book 'The Brain That Changes Itself'?

I have no need to, it sounds like a Steve Martin film from when he was funny

The mans a quack

[A'Villan]

1 minute ago, coda said:

Maybe Dr Joe can create one just by thinking about it. 

lol

I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could.

[bickster]

Anyway, moving swiftly on

Why does the US have NBC News, CNBC News and MSNBC News

I understand that MSNBC is a cable only channel but after that....

[A'Villan]

51 minutes ago, bickster said:

So they eventually went to a University, that's great

 

I do

 

I'm not, never claimed to be one either

 

I have no need to, it sounds like a Steve Martin film from when he was funny

The mans a quack

"The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary's case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own." - John Stuart Mill

I take this to mean that the mark of an educated man, is to study the opposing party's case. Which I think has merit.

'The Brain That Changes Itself' is not a book by Joe Dispenza. It is by Norman Doidge. A scientist with over 170 articles written. One peer review by neuroscientist Lorimer Moseley states, "Doidge has moved way ahead of peer-reviewed medical science".

Without wanting to prolong this conversation beyond your interest, I would add that I called you a scientist, and am aware you never made such claims.

Let me ask you this (open for anyone to respond to), when you use your imagination, are you not capable of experiencing sensation and emotion?

Well, according to Dispenza, the studies show that your brain can't tell the difference between the lived and imagined experience.

In an entirely separate study, we have learnt that schizophrenics and people experiencing psychosis' brains actually light up the exact same way when hallucinating or delusional as a person without the illness' would to external stimuli.

The phrase 'we create our own reality' is a bit of a marketing pitch, but it's also true to some extent.

By habitually functioning under stress hormones, we elicit feelings of anxiety and nervousness in a way which hard-wires our body to expect this sort of reaction. The fact that the brain can't tell the difference between the real and the imagined means that even when we are just thinking something, our body is preparing itself for and reacting to the experience. Eventually the body does something so many times it creates muscle memory repetition to the point where slave becomes the master and the body starts telling the mind what to do because it's so conditioned to a certain response. Like a lifetime smoker having a cigarette for example.

So by changing our thinking, we change the physical response. Meditation helps this process.

 

Edited August 21, 2018 by A'Villan

[bickster]

10 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

The Brain That Changes Itself' is not a book by Joe Dispenza. It is by Norman Doidge. A scientist with over 170 articles written. One peer review by neuroscientist Lorimer Moseley states, "Doidge has moved way ahead of peer-reviewed medical science".

He might as well have said that he'd ceased to be a scientist

[A'Villan]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

He might as well have said that he'd ceased to be a scientist

I interpret the meaning to be he has accomplished understanding beyond the scope of conventional science.

I think I have said enough on the topic for now and have probably hijacked the thread with what seems to be of little interest.

Perhaps it's time for others to contribute their wonder.

[limpid]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

I interpret the meaning to be he has accomplished understanding beyond the scope of conventional science.

I took that quote to mean that the quack is doing something which isn't science. There is no such thing as "conventional science" - you follow the scientific method or you don't. Rather than going "beyond" science, he could simply follow the scientific method and write a paper, get it peer reviewed and have it published in a major journal. If it's really something new, he'll get recognition and reward, and the journal will improve its reputation. Otherwise he's just inflating his ego.

PS. I can be just as qualified in Chiropractic as anyone else by downloading a certificate from the internet and writing my name on it in crayon.

[A'Villan]

2 minutes ago, limpid said:

I took that quote to mean that the quack is doing something which isn't science. There is no such thing as "conventional science" - you follow the scientific method or you don't. Rather than going "beyond" science, he could simply follow the scientific method and write a paper, get it peer reviewed and have it published in a major journal. If it's really something new, he'll get recognition and reward, and the journal will improve its reputation. Otherwise he's just inflating his ego.

PS. I can be just as qualified in Chiropractic as anyone else by downloading a certificate from the internet and writing my name on it in crayon.

I was anticipating a reply from you, limpid.

I can tell you without doubt that the context in which Moseler made his comments was that of praise. Here is a link if you want to clarify:

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/norman-doidges-new-book-shows-the-brains-way-of-healing-20150421-1mpmxo.html

Apologies for not making that more evident, though I can't help but feel your and bicksters disposition toward the science may still remain (perhaps rightfully so) irrespective of that.

I am afraid i do not agree or maybe understand why a scientific method and conventional belief are mutually exclusive. Of course there is conventional belief, even in science.

This is what I meant in my seemingly daft comment about science in the religion thread. I'm not even trying to be contentious.

The only point that you make that I'm nodding my head to is that he is not above critique or recognition from his peers.

 

[limpid]

14 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I am afraid i do not agree or maybe understand why a scientific method and conventional belief are mutually exclusive. Of course there is conventional belief, even in science.

That's not what you said. You didn't say "conventional belief"; you said "conventional science".

16 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

The only point that you make that I'm nodding my head to is that he is not above critique or recognition from his peers.

But what do you mean by peers? As he's unpublished, we are his peers and we are criticising him. I am specifically criticising him for not publishing. If his ideas are as revolutionary as you suggest, why wouldn't he want the experts in the relevant fields to confirm his claims?

To me, he looks like a chancer who has come up with some clever words which he knows won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

[bickster]

You only have to look at the “testimonials” on his website to know he’s a quack, a snake oil salesman, a fraud etc. They are presented as evidence, when they as far removed from evidence as you can get.

Pretty much the same technique as the rogue traders who operate an auction out of the back of a van except with a nice website

[il_serpente]

I feel a slight need to come to the defense of Evergreen State College.   It is part of the state college system in Washington, like the University of Washington (very highly esteemed in a very wide range of fields) and Washington State University.  It was  created to be a bit of an experiment in non-traditional approaches (e.g. narrative reports in lieu of grades), but that doesn't  mean the quality of the education is not good.  It is a liberal arts college, which is more compatible with the non-standard approaches than the hard sciences.  So I'm not defending the quality Dr. Joe's science education, but any suggestion that the college itself is substandard is off the mark. 

[A'Villan]

23 minutes ago, limpid said:

That's not what you said. You didn't say "conventional belief"; you said "conventional science".

But what do you mean by peers? As he's unpublished, we are his peers and we are criticising him. I am specifically criticising him for not publishing. If his ideas are as revolutionary as you suggest, why wouldn't he want the experts in the relevant fields to confirm his claims?

To me, he looks like a chancer who has come up with some clever words which he knows won't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Yes. I did. Thanks for pulling me up on that. There is such a thing as conventional science, it and the scientific method go hand in hand. There is nothing flippant in my use of the term, but I do try and convey that it is not absolute. Its very quest is to ask questions, develop and explore hypotheses through rigorous testing and analysis, and I think it fair to say, come to a better understanding than we had previously. I don't see how Dispenza or Doidge (especially the latter) fail to meet the criteria here.

There is potential for issue with beliefs and bias even with a scientific method in place.

What I mean by peers is basically critique from anyone with a valid point, but in the main people who have done some form of research and exploration. I want to clarify there are now two separate people being discussed, Doidge and Dispenza. One is published and has over 170 articles and two books, one peer review is posted above.

The other is Dispenza who I'm not entirely sure is that revolutionary. I think he takes what's been suggested for a long time and uses conventional science to try and support his claims. As for other scientists not confirming his claims, I'm not too well versed in anyone opposing his ideas, are you? But it wouldn't be the first time there's been opposition in science, it's all over the place.

On Dispenza, maybe you are right. I don't know. I am not a practicing or qualified scientist. However I work at a mental health facility among psychiatrists and psychologists. I do a lot of reading and listening, and am also exposed to some research in my line of study. Then I have my own experience and insights. Dispenza's claims aren't all that far-fetched to me.

[blandy]

Thanks VT, I did some likes because you made me do a laugh, coupla pages back there.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, il_serpente said:

I feel a slight need to come to the defense of Evergreen State College.   It is part of the state college system in Washington, like the University of Washington (very highly esteemed in a very wide range of fields) and Washington State University.  It was  created to be a bit of an experiment in non-traditional approaches (e.g. narrative reports in lieu of grades), but that doesn't  mean the quality of the education is not good.  It is a liberal arts college, which is more compatible with the non-standard approaches than the hard sciences.  So I'm not defending the quality Dr. Joe's science education, but any suggestion that the college itself is substandard is off the mark. 

I wasn't disputing its legitimacy as a college (unlike Life University which might as well be called Quack College), I was merely pointing out its place in the ladder. In UK terms its like saying... Edge Hill University is part of the UK University system just like Oxford and Cambridge. Edge Hill is what we used to call a Teacher Training College but can now call itself a University. It's the lowest rung in the Tertiary Sector.

But to be awarded a BSc for course components that comprise less than 50% in any actual science units seems a little daft to me. It's certainly not the basis for one calling oneself a scientist, especially in light of the fact that there's no specialisation of discipline within the BSc

They probably do a great job and help a lot of people but it's still no basis to call Dr Quack a scientist

[chrisp65]

c'mon, you get an ology, you're a scientist

[limpid]

8 hours ago, A'Villan said:

Yes. I did. Thanks for pulling me up on that. There is such a thing as conventional science, it and the scientific method go hand in hand. There is nothing flippant in my use of the term, but I do try and convey that it is not absolute. Its very quest is to ask questions, develop and explore hypotheses through rigorous testing and analysis, and I think it fair to say, come to a better understanding than we had previously. I don't see how Dispenza or Doidge (especially the latter) fail to meet the criteria here.

No. There is such a thing as science.  It does not need a qualifier. We aren't talking about the person who wrote a fkuff piece about the other.

8 hours ago, A'Villan said:

The other is Dispenza who I'm not entirely sure is that revolutionary. I think he takes what's been suggested for a long time and uses conventional science to try and support his claims. As for other scientists not confirming his claims, I'm not too well versed in anyone opposing his ideas, are you? But it wouldn't be the first time there's been opposition in science, it's all over the place.

So he has come up with something so inxredible that his mate said that it was beyond science, but isn't that revolutionary?

8 hours ago, A'Villan said:

On Dispenza, maybe you are right. I don't know. I am not a practicing or qualified scientist.

Neither is he.

[RimmyJimmer]

 

I often wonder why chiropractic treatment gets looked upon as some sort of witchcraft by many?

In my experience it has been incredibly benificial and saved me having to take a lot of time off work.