I would dispute that it is only an "IDEA". It may seem this way to you, thus the "quackery" terminology. Homeopathy may be "utterly ludicrous" to some, while others love it, although I am not sure Molly was generally talking about homeopathy, although some of the methods she brought up may fall under that broad heading.
I would suggest that, in the case where something has not been experienced personally, that it should not be catagorized emphatically as bunk with less-than-rosey adjectives, but maybe one could state "This is not my experience" or even "Until this happens to me I won't believe it" etc. Lack of personal experience does not render anothers experience obsolete or irelevant. On Aug 5, 8:20 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Calling an IDEA quackery is exactly in keeping with our debate format. Attack > the idea, not the person. I find the idea of homeopathy to be utterly > ludicrous. I would not, however, personally attack a member of this forum for > espousing it. > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:deripsni <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds Eye\"" > <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:41:37 -0700 > (PDT)Local:Wed, Aug 5 2009 6:41 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Non Medical > Healing - The Non-Science of Life? > > Thanks for the welcome, although I'm not sure why someone who has been > posting 10 times a day for 2 months needs welcoming ;-] > > If you think calling somebody's words "outrageous, quackery and juju", > is classified as "reasonable debate", you are free to do so. Sounds a > tad more like outright dismissal with a topping of spite. Molly's > personal characteristics have nothing to do with my determinations > about the subject. I did not agree with her because I find her "an > intelligent, well rounded thinker" [ I don't even know what she looks > like ;-], but because I have been practicing what she is talking about > for decades. In my experience, positive thinking has affected my > physical health. > > To clarify what I meant when I said that I was "surprised at the > resistance"; I am not surprised that many do not accept her words, > doubters in this area are a dime a dozen. What did surprise me was the > harshness of language spoken by those who have admonished me for > pointed wording that I rarely use in my posts, although typically > directed at abusive types, and not someone reasonable like Molly. In > fact, Molly's responses to these personal attacks have been very > reserved as I am sure she would have loved to return the volley in > kind. > > Like I said, must be something to do with the moon ;-] > > On Aug 4, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Welcome to the Minds Eye, Deripsni. ;) Rigorous debate, especially in areas > > of study which may be scientifically immature (as has been suggested by > > some), is the norm. What would be more surprising around here would be for a > > "New Age" type idea to sail by unchecked. I find Molly to be an intelligent > > and well rounded thinker, who is capable and articulate when verbalizing and > > defending her viewpoints, and I'm sure she's not surprised at the > > resistance. Rational thought is something we value here, so any idea which > > doesn't seem to sit right to any one of us according to our own rational > > understanding of the available data will be fully analyzed and chewed on. > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:46 PM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I support that analysis, and am a little surprised at the resistance. > > > > On Aug 4, 6:09 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There is a link between neurochemistry and emotion, Chris, but the > > > > direction of cause is in dispute. Basically happy people have a > > > > balance in body chemistry that reflects that. Constantly angry people > > > > have a body chemistry that reflects that. Two different body > > > > chemistry balances in many ways. Are you saying that the chemistry > > > > drives the emotion? Because I think it is the other way around, and > > > > that we can learn to maintain emotional health just as we can learn to > > > > maintain physical health. > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:38 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The reason I come back to injections, Molly, is because we know that > > > > > chemicals control moods, shape them. Seratonin, dopamine, oxytocin, > > > > > adrenaline...these are the building blocks of our emotions. Our moods > > > do not > > > > > create them...they would not exist without them. Outside stimulus will > > > cause > > > > > response, and with conscious effort, we can indeed learn to, in some > > > small > > > > > way, mitigate their production, but it is not circular to recognize > > > > > the > > > > > causal nature of neurochemistry to mood. The injection experiment > > > > > would > > > be > > > > > empirical proof of this; if your mood was capable of mitigating a > > > > > contradictory dosage of neurochemical cocktail, it would provide > > > scientific > > > > > evidence to support your statement. > > > > > > But then, according to your post, this isn't about scientific facts, > > > this is > > > > > about individual truths (read: faith). > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Again, the which came first circular argument. I am not saying that > > > > > > neurochemistry does not exist, Chris, only that it is not the whole > > > > > > picture. And this is not the first time you have suggested that I > > > > > > inject something to prove your point (or Ian's). I guess you didn't > > > > > > understand my post above when I said that is up to YOU to prove to > > > > > > yourself, not me to prove to you. I have already proved it to > > > > > > myself. > > > > > > I have learned with much contemplation and self examination, to > > > > > > regulate my moods and emotional responses. You may take a pill to > > > > > > regulate yours, I don't know. As I say, to each his own. > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 5:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > It's easy enough to test your theory, Molly. I can inject you with > > > the > > > > > > > chemicals which WILL alter your mood, and you can attempt to > > > > > > > combat > > > them > > > > > > by > > > > > > > willing your mood to change the chemicals. > > > > > > > > How can the mood exist outside of the chemicals? The mood IS the > > > > > > chemicals. > > > > > > > Neurochemistry is not some dark and unexplored science. There is > > > much > > > > > > > research available. Here's a good start > > > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowTOC&rid=b... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Molly Brogan < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > While chemical balance is one part of our "health," claiming > > > > > > > > that > > > it > > > > > > > > the entire picture is a very narrow focus. You seem to be > > > presenting > > > > > > > > the premise that our chemical balance produces our mood. I > > > suggest > > > > > > > > that our mood effects our chemical balance. Quackery and juju > > > works > > > > > > > > both ways, and simply can't get away with it anymore may also > > > apply to > > > > > > > > an outdated medical model. The paradigm of science itself is > > > > > > > > changing, although mainstream is slow to catch up. > > > > > > > > > Orn, you did mean posters and not posers, I take it. Very > > > > > > > > funny. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 4:32 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The body can heal itself; this is not a revelation, it does > > > this > > > > > > > > > continuously, every day, with the production of new cells. The > > > > > > operating > > > > > > > > > factor and scope for variability, and there is only one, is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > chemical > > > > > > > > > balance of the body in question. Mood is part of this. > > > > > > > > > > Why try to dress this up with quackery and juju? You simply > > > can't get > > > > > > > > away > > > > > > > > > with it any more. > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
