Once again, Deripsni, you are incorrect in your assertion. Before you go any farther, please go back and read Molly's exact quote.
2009/8/4 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> In order for non medical healing to occur, you need to believe in it. Would you like to qualify this outrageous statement? Ian Molly makes a statement of an idea. Not a recollection of personal experience, but a statement of an idea. Ian responds by attacking the idea in an entirely acceptable (although acerbic) way. You are now committing the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to Emotion' in her defense, in stating "I'm sure she's not enjoying it.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion Your argument type is no less valid than Ian's. Both are allowed, and I'm sure that many would find your type as distasteful as you find his. * Entiende?* On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:35 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > No need to go on, although your examples have little to do with my > point, or from my perspective, Molly's. We are talking about a belief > in one's own ability to acheive something through the power of > positive thinking. In Molly's case, this attitude or "belief" worked > to gain the healthy "experience". > > We are not discussing the belief in a cultist's dogma, or the > propensity of pedeophiles to attack young children, or that you should > not condemn the belief or hunger of vile people with personal agendas > that fly in the face of decency. Even though you have not experienced > them, you have knowledge of the devastating effects of these events, > and can therefore condemn them until you are blue in the face with my > blessing. > > Such is not the case with Molly's assertion that a belief in something > helped her to gain a positive result. You can say that her experience > is quackery, or use any other adjective you like, but that does not > impact her experience one way or the other. To refute someones > personal experience simply because you have not experienced it, and to > do so with the terms we are talking about, is something I do not think > is right, and I am sure Molly is not enjoying it. > > On Aug 5, 10:12 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is a nice idea, Deripsni, and I can see that you mean it with the > best > > of intentions, but I'm afraid it's utterly fallacious. Allow me to > > demonstrate. > > > > I could condemn the beliefs of the Jim Jones / Heaven's Gate (insert > > suicidal death cult here) group as lunacy which led to their demise, but > > I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. > > > > I could condemn the hunger of Pedophiliacs and Serial Killers as socially > > destructive, but I'll reserve judgement since I haven't experienced it. > > > > I could condemn the dogma of The Lord's Army of Uganda / The Islamic > Jihad / > > The Shining Path / Aum Shinrikyo as religious madness which has directly > led > > to the deaths of millions, but I'll reserve judgement, since I haven't > > experienced it. > > > > Need I go on? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:49 AM, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- Hide 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
