Without suggesting Reiki only works as a placebo, don't belittle the positive effects of placebo in people's medical treatments. Doctors recognise placebo as a very real and positive influence on people's health. So don't talk about it as if it has no value, and please, there's no need to advise me to 'learn about the placebo effect'! I'm not a year 10 student, I probably new more about the placebo effect and it's positive contribution to recovery than you do!
The arrogance that I need to 'learn about placebo', honestly!
And seriously, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to speak for my friend or me, as to whether Reiki has worked only because of a placebo effect- no right at all, without a single shred of even anecodotal evidence to back it up. I just can't believe the arrogance of your faith in your own assumptions. I think you actually look down on anyone who believes in something that you don't believe in, as if you have some superior knowledge than they/we do. This arrogance that pervades scientists and their blind evangelical followers is really very scary...
Reiki does not claim to heal at all- individuals claim to heal with Reiki, Reiki doesn't say anything at all, it has no voice! And I have not used the word heal in conjunction with Reiki in any of my posts, so please, stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and focus on the actual point of the posting if you're going to quote it.
It's really quite insulting to people who are perfectly capable of understanding the concept of placebo, and also the possibility that something to do with the placement of hands, the heat and energetic consequence of doing so to the physical areas of the body on which the hands are placed, and the possible positive consequences to health thereof. It seems to me, that you haven't even considered the possibility that placing your hands on the body might have more positive consequence than placebo, which is fundamentally a psychological phenomenon.
I wonder, just how much you really know about Reiki, or any other non-medical procedure? Do you have specific experience or expertise in this area, because if you do, I'm all ears!
I do get what you're trying to achieve, I think! But it's not really the 'end' that I distance myself from, it's the means. The willingness of many posters (I'm not directing my comment specifically at the owners or admins of the boards) to attack almost on instinct, anyone who expresses any interest or belief that any of what you yourself have listed out above, might have some positive benefit to anyone is just so 'over the top'.
As I've stated already it isn't attacking it's a passion to show the truth using evidence we have.
It looks very much like you are using the same 'can't be scientifically proven' argument to broadly attack anything that hasn't yet or can't be scientifically proven, as necessarily invalid, because it hasn't been.
And what's wrong with that? Logic and science has shown us how psychics and mediums con people, crystal healers have never under testing shown to heal anyone and so it goes on, why should we believe in these things then?
And I maintain, that that is a narrow-minded dogmatic approach which doesn't leave much room for debate of any real kind. And I do think that it is 'negative' to approach an issue in that way. It's negative because it negates proper debate.
No offence meant but I think you are closing your mind to our side of the debate. Are you looking at the reasons why we believe as we do? I'm not speaking for all our members as we do have regular posters who believe in mediumship and contribute to this forum.
If the only criteria by which anything can ever be assessed is 'science', then really, GOD HELP US!
Science and God in the same sentence Surely you can't deny that science has done the most to aid us in understanding our world and space? Why wouldn't someone use science as a criteria?
Shall I tell you what 'science' and the medical profession used to do
Got to stop you there .... "used to do" The advances in medical science have improved and there are many more treatments now.... behavioural therapy, counselling, music therapy, dance therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, play therapy, speech & language therapy and surgery including specialists such as audiologists, developmental paediatricians, neurologists, nutritionists, occupational therapists, orthopaedic surgeons, and speech pathologists.
We're going back only 40-50 years.
But the point is that science is always moving forward, if there hadn't been enquiring minds doing scientific experiments then would we still have no knowledge of bacteria for instance?
Blind faith in science,
Not blind faith at all, proven facts.
But you and those adopting your position, would pursuade someone in his position to leave Reiki well alone, believing you were doing him a favour, when in fact, you were depriving him of something genuinely useful and helpful to him.
Not at all, what I do have a problem with is people taking money for this unproven service. What I do believe in is postive thinking, your body does respond to that. If your friend is responding and you don't charge money, I have no problem with it.
That's what worries me most about this blind faith in science and blind anti-faith in anything metaphysical that is spouted throughout these boards. You've all made up your minds, and nothing on Earth is going to change your minds about any aspect of anything that (yawn) hasn't been scientifically proven!
Again, not blind faith, proven facts. As for the metaphysical, why have faith in something unproven that's like believing in God
Just out of interest, what would be taken as prove of a paranormal or metaphysical phenomenon to those people who would shout from the rooftops if they got it? Obvously RANDI has put up his money, but what exactly would constitute proof of say, the existence of ghosts?
If you search this site you will find numerous threads on cold reading, orbs, ghost sightings etc, if you read them and the main BP site with the articles you will find the answer to that question.
Stay and post your thoughts it's always good to hear other points of view, we might not agree but the ensuing debates will make interesting reading
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Without suggesting Reiki only works as a placebo, don't belittle the positive effects of placebo in people's medical treatments. Doctors recognise placebo as a very real and positive influence on people's health. So don't talk about it as if it has no value, and please, there's no need to advise me to 'learn about the placebo effect'! I'm not a year 10 student, I probably new more about the placebo effect and it's positive contribution to recovery than you do!
Show me double blind studies with controls that prove reiki works better than placebo. I found studies that said things like this, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion." www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/reiki.html I don't believe I said anything negative about placebo. I did suggest that placebo effect is all that is happening in your case. So far the evidence points to placebo as the only effect reiki has.
I never said you were a student, you seem to be reading a lot of aggression into these comments. Your anecdote only points towards placebo, it doesn't matter if the client is an accountant or not.
I am glad you make no assumptions about me or my education.
The arrogance that I need to 'learn about placebo', honestly!
And seriously, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to speak for my friend or me, as to whether Reiki has worked only because of a placebo effect- no right at all, without a single shred of even anecodotal evidence to back it up. I just can't believe the arrogance of your faith in your own assumptions. I think you actually look down on anyone who believes in something that you don't believe in, as if you have some superior knowledge than they/we do. This arrogance that pervades scientists and their blind evangelical followers is really very scary...
Where did I speak for you or your friend? Anecdotal evidence has no place in a serious study. It is just a story, it doesn't matter who tells it. I prefer empirical evidence that can be measured, studied, and repeated in experiments. I can ignore the ad homs.
Reiki does not claim to heal at all- individuals claim to heal with Reiki, Reiki doesn't say anything at all, it has no voice! And I have not used the word heal in conjunction with Reiki in any of my posts, so please, stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and focus on the actual point of the posting if you're going to quote it.
The five concepts of reiki as stated by the creator of reiki.
The secret art of inviting happiness
The miraculous medicine for all diseases
At least for today, do not be angry.
Do not worry.
Do your work with appreciation.
Be kind to people.
Every morning and evening, join your hands in meditation and pray with your heart. State in your mind and chant with your mouth.
For improvement of mind and body.
Usui Reiki Ryoho
The founder
Mikao Usui
It's really quite insulting to people who are perfectly capable of understanding the concept of placebo, and also the possibility that something to do with the placement of hands, the heat and energetic consequence of doing so to the physical areas of the body on which the hands are placed, and the possible positive consequences to health thereof. It seems to me, that you haven't even considered the possibility that placing your hands on the body might have more positive consequence than placebo, which is fundamentally a psychological phenomenon.
Once again show me the double blind experiment that shows reiki has a more positive effect than placebo. There is actually more to placebo than just psychological. If you had read the article I posted earlier it goes over that.
Also if reiki doesn't heal as you claim, then what do you mean by positive consequences to health?
I wonder, just how much you really know about Reiki, or any other non-medical procedure? Do you have specific experience or expertise in this area, because if you do, I'm all ears!
Argument from authority, Van Praag likes this argument also. I have read several studies and read about experiments involving reiki. One does not have to have experience or be an expert to read about experiments.
You seem to think that I am attacking you and your friend in someway. All I did was suggest that reiki helped due to the placebo effect. I do not see where I was attacking you. If I did attack then I apologize.
Firstly, you can argue about Reiki's effectiveness all day long if it makes you feel good, but you can't argue whether it exists- as a system/methodology, it does exist.
I dont do this to "feel good", I argue against it because it isnt real. Your claim that reiki exists (as an idea at least) I have no doubt about. However I do doubt it actually does anything.
So I'm not clear on whether quoting Confucius is just an attempt at appearing well-read or educated, or if you have a serious point to make!
That was actually a faux Confucius quote, for comedic purposes. My point was to illustrate that you cannot seriously claim to be a "master" in something that does not exist.
It's pretty easy to prove the validity of my anecdotal evidence.
No, really, it isnt.
It is straighforward testimony from a qualified accountant who experienced significant benefits in relation to muscular spacsticity, after receiving reiki, so much so that he learnt the technique himself. And treatements provided to him were given as one friend gives time to another, not for financial gain. But I didn't place my post on here to pursuade anyone of how Reiki can help them- I have no vested interest whatsoever in doing so, I just put my point of view on the board alongside others, because I thought it was an interesting discussion.
I have no doubt this person felt like reiki was of some benefit to them, however that does not make the treatment valid, or its effects real. At one point in history, people of a nervous disposition were "treated" with electro convulsive therapy. They espoused its percieved benefits to all who would listen, however, all they managed to achive was to repeatedly electrocute themselves. If a person believes a therapy is useful to them, that does not equate that the therapy is real, merely the client/patient is convinced of its validity.
In my opinion, Reiki helped my friend without him specifically having any faith in it at all, we spent time together to see if it 'could' help him in any way, and it most certainly did. And there's nothing irrational about a person doing something from which they have derived a benefit. It's totally irrational to completely ignore something from which you derive benefit, because you don't understand why it works!
I your "friend" had no faith in reiki, he would not have perceived any benefit, that is not how placebo effect works. Despite his assertion he did not have any particular faith in it, he still claimed it worked and yet bizzarely it has no real effect at all, only what people imagine the effect to be.
In respect of mythical origins, I didn't make any reference to mythical origins, it's irrelevant to my point, the simple fact that there is no specific dogma attached to the practice of Reiki, as you might find if you attempted to follow some religious path reliant on spiritual texts for your life lessons.
I agree the mythical origins are irrelevant to its effectiveness, if it works it orks. However, it has no measurable effect, ergo it does not work. I could not recommend using any "spiritual" texts to base your life on.
And since we all agree that evidence for claims made is important, what evidence do you have that the reason individiuals feel relaxed after performing Reiki are the reasons you've given? Absolutely none, I suspect. Seems like they're just assumptions based on a pre-conception.
It is you making the claim that reki is real. It is your responsibility to provide evidence of its effectiveness. That is how evidence works. I do not need to provide evidence it does not work, as I do not claim it actually works. However, what is more likely? People feel better because some magical, unknown, unmeasurable energy is pulled from the ether and channeled through the "master" to heal/relax/cleanse the client? Or they simply feel better because someone paid attention to them and their problem?
The tone of the boards in here now I've had a good look around is really quite aggressive. I didn't realise how militant some members seem to be! I can't imagine how depressing a life must be if lived without faith in anything that can't be proven scientifically, today! What a vacuous life it would be, never seeking answers beyond that which has already been proven!
It is neither agressive, nor militant. Nobody here needs a faith in an irrational belief to get through the day, if you do then fine. I guess some people have more faith in their own abilities that are real and valid, than the imaginary type. It is clear to me that you have little to no understanding of actual science, but merely a distorted perception of what science is supposed to be about.
This statement is not meant to be derogatory, it is simply a statment of fact. You would be well served to try and understand what science does, and what its aims and goals are, this will save you much embarrasment later on. Sceptics like scientists require evidences for claims before we can seriously evaluate them, if non is provided by the claimant, then how are we supposed to take the claim seriously?
Distance Reiki - excuse my French but are we still on about this bollix! It doesn't cure anything. Reiki one on one just makes you feel relaxed and feel good.
"It is clear to me that you have little to no understanding of actual science, but merely a distorted perception of what science is supposed to be about.
This statement is not meant to be derogatory, it is simply a statment of fact. You would be well served to try and understand what science does, and what its aims and goals are, this will save you much embarrasment later on."
I am amazed that you could make such a ridiculous assumption. Unless you are suddenly claiming to be a psychic! Are you psychic?
How can it possibly be clear to you that I know nothing of science, if you haven't even asked me what my background is?
I think my postings show clearly I understand entirely what science is, I understand completely how the scientific process works, and I APPROVE of science! I don't have a problem with the scientific process, other than it has limitations, but that's not to say it isn't extremely important in advancing the human race and pursuing truth!
I really don't think I need to worry about being embarassed on that front!
But your own argument is what you should be embarassed about- since you've just stated that your comment is not meant to be derrogatory (which of course it is), but that it's a statement of fact! Haha!
I have studied science my friend, your statement of fact is so far from fact, I'm having trouble typing because I can't stop laughing!
Maybe as time goes by, you'll realise what a silly comment to make that was!
But you are quite right, skeptics do require evidence before they make claims.
But since I haven't made any claims in relation to Reiki, other than describing my particular experience in it, I fail to see the point of this little argument.
I suspect that assumptions are being made about me as an individual, because I introduced myself as being a Reiki Master. I suspect in a skeptic's mind, that has a whole series of assumptions about me as a person attached to it.
For the record, I have studied science, and I have also studied philosophy. I am qualified to comment on both.
Both philosophy and science have one thing in common in their pursuit for truth- don't assume something without good cause, and preferably, make no assumptions at all, unless you think you can or will be able to justify it later on.
Perhaps you should apply that principle to the assumptions you make about me, among other things!
I realise now the error I've made in posting on boards run by skeptics. There's nothing to debate, without scientific proof of any claim made. So there's not much to debate at all really.
The same principle will apply no matter what the subject.
I thought the point of an interesting debate was a little broader than that. By limiting all debates to the same question, has science proven this or not, it can be pretty much summed up as either yes or no answers. YAWN!
I am amazed that you could make such a ridiculous assumption. Unless you are suddenly claiming to be a psychic! Are you psychic?
How can it possibly be clear to you that I know nothing of science, if you haven't even asked me what my background is?
Hmmmm? Well in all fairness, you have previously posted such luddite gems as.
But I think if you focus on the lack of scientific 'proof', and ignore the actual benefits that can be derived from regular practice, then you've kind of missed the point of Reiki altogether
It's pretty easy to prove the validity of my anecdotal evidence
test things out cautiously, see if there's anything to be gained from something, for me or someone I care about, and then go with it, without constantly seeking validation from the scientific process
Having learnt about Reiki doesn't preclude me from respecting science. But equally, I do not discount something when I have evidence of my own, showing me clearly, that some benefit can be derived from something, regardless of it having not yet been tested scientfically.
Blind faith in science, which let's face it, is the single argument that almost every board on here falls back on, is the very thing that has never helped my friend with his condition
That's what worries me most about this blind faith in science and blind anti-faith in anything metaphysical that is spouted throughout these boards. You've all made up your minds, and nothing on Earth is going to change your minds about any aspect of anything that (yawn) hasn't been scientifically proven!
Yes, you do appear to understand science quite well
I think my postings show clearly I understand entirely what science is, I understand completely how the scientific process works, and I APPROVE of science!
That would not appear to be the case, as seen above.
I don't have a problem with the scientific process, other than it has limitations, but that's not to say it isn't extremely important in advancing the human race and pursuing truth!
I really don't think I need to worry about being embarassed on that front!
Well Im glad you agree with science
Yes science does have its limitations, but it is the best method we as humans have developed to discover the truth. There is no finer system of discovery available.
But your own argument is what you should be embarassed about- since you've just stated that your comment is not meant to be derrogatory (which of course it is), but that it's a statement of fact! Haha!
Sorry, I didnt realise you were psychic, I mean I know that you can now read my mind and realise what I actually mean. Good for you
I have studied science my friend, your statement of fact is so far from fact, I'm having trouble typing because I can't stop laughing!
Reiki can cure that
Maybe as time goes by, you'll realise what a silly comment to make that was!
To be brutally honest, I dont see that happening.
But you are quite right, skeptics do require evidence before they make claims.
Yes, we do.
But since I haven't made any claims in relation to Reiki, other than describing my particular experience in it, I fail to see the point of this little argument.
Hmmmmm......
I didn't learn Reiki quickly. I took each level 6 months apart, and found it helpful, on a meditative level. I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy, and how useful it has been with children with behavioural problems.
Quite a non claim there then
I suspect that assumptions are being made about me as an individual, because I introduced myself as being a Reiki Master. I suspect in a skeptic's mind, that has a whole series of assumptions about me as a person attached to it.
Not really, I dont care if you claim to be a reiki master, or a mongolian clown wrestler, it matters not to me. I will base y opinion of you on what you communicate, not what you describe yourself as.
For the record, I have studied science, and I have also studied philosophy. I am qualified to comment on both.
Philosophy I can believe, you appear to have a leaning towards the metaphysical, however your science needs work.
Both philosophy and science have one thing in common in their pursuit for truth- don't assume something without good cause, and preferably, make no assumptions at all, unless you think you can or will be able to justify it later on.
Philosphy makes nothing but assumptions, such is the nature of exploratory thought. Science does not, unless there is evidences to lead the theory in that direction.
Perhaps you should apply that principle to the assumptions you make about me, among other things!
I make no assumptions about you, except perhaps that you are deluded. I await your evidence to refute that assumption.
I realise now the error I've made in posting on boards run by skeptics. There's nothing to debate, without scientific proof of any claim made. So there's not much to debate at all really.
Oh, we can debate just fine, however it would appear you need a little help.
The same principle will apply no matter what the subject.
I thought the point of an interesting debate was a little broader than that. By limiting all debates to the same question, has science proven this or not, it can be pretty much summed up as either yes or no answers. YAWN!
Truth can be yes or no, so how exactly does that limit the debate? Infact it would establish truth faster would it not? Please try harder.
Ok. In an effort to keep the thread going, and to avoid arguing about the strengths and weaknesses of both science and philosophy (since that's not what the thread is about), here's the point that needs addressing specifically in relation to Reiki.
It seems we're all in agreement that truth and the pursuit of it, is our desired aim.
So, with that in mind, how is it, that when evidence IS offered, that benefit is derived from Reiki in individual cases, that that evidence is either written off as placebo without further investigation, or described as a delusion?
If evidence is offered, then a true scientist would want to investigate it.
In my specific case, I would call upon a scientist ( if there are any on here ) to investigate whether Reiki can assist in reducing muscular spasticity, or not. I have nothing to fear, since my only interest is that if my friend's experience is typical, then I'd like to see other people benefiting from it as well. Nothing to do with magic, or even earning money, just people with life-long painful conditions experiencing relief from it.
Since there are very few effective treatments for life-long conditions such as cerebral palsy, I don't see why there's such a strongly adverse reaction to the suggestion that Reiki as a complementary treatment warrants further investigation.
In fact, I question why someone would adopt a skeptical position in that context, without keeping some element of an open mind. Constant references to 'magical energy' and 'healing' aren't helpful if we're being scientific in our approach to a question such as this. It's just a straw man used to distract us all from what matters- finding things that further the pursuit of truth, and helps people live happier and better lives....
So, with that in mind, how is it, that when evidence IS offered, that benefit is derived from Reiki in individual cases, that that evidence is either written off as placebo without further investigation, or described as a delusion?
But that is the problem isnt it? NO evidence has been offered to support reiki. Sure there are the anecdotes, but anecdotes are not evidence. For example:
the practitioners of reiki believe that health and disease are a matter of the life force being disrupted. Each believes that the universe is full of energy which cannot be detected by any scientific instruments but which can be felt and manipulated by special people who learn the tricks of the trade.
The reiki master claims to be able to draw upon the energy of the universe and increase his or her own energy while performing a healing. Reiki healers claim to channel ki into "diseased" individuals for "rebalancing. ." Larry Arnold and Sandra Nevins claim in The Reiki Handbook (1992) that reiki is useful for treating brain damage, cancer, diabetes and venereal diseases. If the healing fails, however, it is because the patient is resisting the healing energy.
So we have an assumption of "life force" which is unfounded, undetectable "energy" which is unfounded, the physical/mental ability of a reiki "master" to tune into this "energy" which is unfounded, and the ability to manipulate this "energy" by a physical and mental process, which is unfounded.
The claim that it is useful for treating (how exactly it does not say) serious medical conditions such as brain damage. If the "healing" fails, it is not because the reiki practise is fraudulent, it is because the blame falls squarely on the patient because they "resist" the "healing energy". Which is more likely? That the patient resisted a magical, intangiable, undetectable energy? or that the treatment/healing was utter b***cks?
If evidence is offered, then a true scientist would want to investigate it.
So provide real evidence of its efficacy, its a simple task really if the claim is real.
In my specific case, I would call upon a scientist ( if there are any on here ) to investigate whether Reiki can assist in reducing muscular spasticity, or not. I have nothing to fear, since my only interest is that if my friend's experience is typical, then I'd like to see other people benefiting from it as well. Nothing to do with magic, or even earning money, just people with life-long painful conditions experiencing relief from it.
Ok let us look seriously at your claim. Muscle spasticity is caused by damage to the neurons. They are generated by the spinal cord, not the brain, although lesions can form at the base of the cerebellum or white matter tract between it, because of this. (common in people with cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis) If reiki can and does effect this condition, it would be very simple to test. All one would have to do is MRI scan the head to see if the lesions had been reduced in size and complexity, thus easing the level and frequency of spasticity. This must then be shown to be a direct result of the reiki, as opposed to any other influencing factors such as medications, remissions, or even a jehova miracle
However I assume your friend with the condition is also taking regular medication for this condition such as benzodiazepines, diazepam or clonazepam.
So if the effect is reduced, why is it the seemingly "imaginary" reiki causing it? Isnt it more likely that the reduction in spasticity is in direct relation to the properly prescribed medication that is specifically designed to allieviate these symptoms, and can be evidenced with medical testing and clinical trials?
Since there are very few effective treatments for life-long conditions such as cerebral palsy, I don't see why there's such a strongly adverse reaction to the suggestion that Reiki as a complementary treatment warrants further investigation.
Yes but that is an inherent problem with CAM's, they simply do not work. We need more treatments that DO actually work, otherwise you are simply deluding the patient, and the patient deludes themselves accordingly. It seems to me to be an incredibly callous thing to do, even if the intent is good.
In fact, I question why someone would adopt a skeptical position in that context, without keeping some element of an open mind. Constant references to 'magical energy' and 'healing' aren't helpful if we're being scientific in our approach to a question such as this. It's just a straw man used to distract us all from what matters- finding things that further the pursuit of truth, and helps people live happier and better lives....
It is not me making the claim the energy is magical in nature, it is the practitioners of reiki themselves (so self promoted strawman?). Reiki claims to work outside of science, and as such cannot be tested. To be brutally honest, that is just a weasel word claim. If it works at all it can be tested by science, and yet invariably it fails miserably because it doesnt work.
Sorry, but how can you obtain evidence on which to base a scientific study, without having someone agree to test something out to see if it helps them? How is that callous?
I thought that's what happened in scientific trials?
I don't think your comment was directed at me in respect of callousness or deluding my friend, but correct me if I'm wrong there. I think you're attacking the people that claim something can cure or heal without any proof of the claim. Which seems to me completely fair- if you're going to claim something actually heals then you better be able to prove it.
But please don't lump me in with those kind of self-proclaimed healers- because I don't practise Reiki in that way. I'm more interested in IF it helps, as it did in the case of a friend, not claiming that it actually heals. And I don't practise it as a job, it's purely something of interest to me, alongside many other ideas and concepts that test the boundaries of science. Or not as the case may turn out to be...
Sorry, but how can you obtain evidence on which to base a scientific study, without having someone agree to test something out to see if it helps them? How is that callous?
Im not sure I understand your garbled message here.
If Im translating this correctly, all you would need to do to accumlate scientific evidence to support the claim that reiki works, is to simply get a patient/patients to be willing to be monitored and tested for the duration of the clinical trial. I dont see a problem here?
Your second point is redundant as it is a seperate issue and should not really be addended to the current point.
I thought that's what happened in scientific trials?
I do not understand what this quote is in relation to? Did you mean to quote something I had previously said? I will need context to reply adequately.
I don't think your comment was directed at me in respect of callousness or deluding my friend, but correct me if I'm wrong there. I think you're attacking the people that claim something can cure or heal without any proof of the claim. Which seems to me completely fair- if you're going to claim something actually heals then you better be able to prove it.
No, I dont attack people, I attack their argument, ad hominum serves little useful purpose in a debate. I agree that if a claim is made as to the efficacy of a "treatment", there should be ample real evidence that it actually works. If not it is speculation, or faith, or a belief with zero basis in reality.
But please don't lump me in with those kind of self-proclaimed healers- because I don't practise Reiki in that way. I'm more interested in IF it helps, as it did in the case of a friend, not claiming that it actually heals.
Forgive my bluntness here, but you did claim that your "mastery of reiki" has helped your friends muscular spasticity. This is quite a bold claim, and one that is obviously unfounded given the nature of the mystical universal energies that you claim to be able to channel and direct. How do you define "help" and "heal"? You claim there was a reduction in spasticity based on your treatment of your friend using reiki. You claim this is proof enough for you that reiki works, yet you seem to be unaware of statistical coincidence, or operator bias, or even the influence of pure ego, directing some to claim they are responsible for something that happened, when they were infact not.
And I don't practise it as a job, it's purely something of interest to me, alongside many other ideas and concepts that test the boundaries of science. Or not as the case may turn out to be...
As a hobby, I have no problem with it, however I cannot see how exactly you are testing the bounds of science in a purely non scientific way. To test the bounds of science it might be an idea to actually conduct some testing, and then offer your results to peer review which will confirm or deny your ability to "help" people.
Quote: But please don't lump me in with those kind of self-proclaimed healers- because I don't practise Reiki in that way. I'm more interested in IF it helps, as it did in the case of a friend, not claiming that it actually heals.
Forgive my bluntness here, but you did claim that your "mastery of reiki" has helped your friends muscular spasticity. This is quite a bold claim, and one that is obviously unfounded given the nature of the mystical universal energies that you claim to be able to channel and direct. How do you define "help" and "heal"? You claim there was a reduction in spasticity based on your treatment of your friend using reiki. You claim this is proof enough for you that reiki works, yet you seem to be unaware of statistical coincidence, or operator bias, or even the influence of pure ego, directing some to claim they are responsible for something that happened, when they were infact not.
Please support your argument with where I actually claimed that "Mastery of Reiki", and more specfically, my mastery of Reiki is what helped my friend? Because I've never specifically claimed that. It's just nonsense. Do forgive my bluntness won't you old chap! ;-)
I'll quote myself for you since you seem so intent on misquoting me:
In my opinion, Reiki helped my friend without him specifically having any faith in it at all, we spent time together to see if it 'could' help him in any way
I am a Reiki Master- and I read this thread with fascination.
Beacuse I too have reservations about some of the claims people make regarding what Reiki is supposed to be able to do!
I didn't learn Reiki quickly. I took each level 6 months apart, and found it helpful, on a meditative level. I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy,
No claim that mastery of Reiki itself is what has helped him. Just you trying to extrapolate something falsely, so that you can knock it down. Yet another straw man... I'm going to start calling you Straw Man from now on!
I can't even be bothered to respond to your first two comments because you've misunderstood what I meant, partly because I couldn't be bothered to keep quoting you everytime I write a post. And it doesn't make a big difference to the thread anyway.
Please support your argument with where I actually claimed that "Mastery of Reiki", and more specfically, my mastery of Reiki is what helped my friend? Because I've never specifically claimed that. It's just nonsense. Do forgive my bluntness won't you old chap! ;-)
I was also surprised at how effective it has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy, and how useful it has been with children with behavioural problems.
There you go.
I'll quote myself for you since you seem so intent on misquoting me:
I never misquote, that is your claim.
No claim that mastery of Reiki itself is what has helped him. Just you trying to extrapolate something falsely, so that you can knock it down. Yet another straw man... I'm going to start calling you Straw Man from now on!
Then you would be an idiot who did not understand what the strawman logical fallacy means. Let me reiterate.
I was also surprised at how effective it (Sic*Reiki) has been in reducing spasticity in a friend with Cerebral Palsy
You think this is an extrapolation? If that was not your claim, then you did not write what you really meant at the time of posting. How exactly is this my error?
I can't even be bothered to respond to your first two comments because you've misunderstood what I meant, partly because I couldn't be bothered to keep quoting you everytime I write a post. And it doesn't make a big difference to the thread anyway.
Dont worry about being unable to answer my questions, most believers cannot when questioned. This only reveals a weakness of their position. Good luck though
You've just twisted your argument again. Your previous post claimed that "MASTERY OF REIKI" was what I claimed helped my friend. Your last post leads to the conclusion that "REIKI" is what I claimed helped my friend. They are not the same arguments. And you probably know that, but it's worth distinguishing between the two claims anyway in an effort to highlight the way you manipulate language to draw specific conclusions, all of which are designed to attack both the argument and the person furthering it, regardless of your previous claims not to forward ad hominem arguments. It's all desperately childish, and to be honest, I've got much better things to do than to continue this pointless nonsense any further.
Secondly, not bothering to answer purile points doesn't mean that one can't, it just means one can't be bothered!
You claim to be a Reiki Master and you claimed that reiki helped your friend. Reiki master would mean to me a master of reiki, I am not sure what your definition is though.
I am also still waiting on your definition of healing and "positive consequences to health".
If there's one thing that gets my goat, and indeed the rest of my livestock, it's the woo merchants' use of the word "healing" in such a way that the majority of people understand it to mean "curing".
If you look back, Julia, you will notice he claimed Reiki says nothing about healing, and he never claimed to heal anyone. In that same post he said Reiki made a "positive consequence to health".
In my next post, I showed where the creator of Reiki claimed Reiki could heal. I also asked what he meant by healing and "positive consequence to health". I have yet to receive an answer.
I stopped short of posting anecdotal evidence of my claim of positive consequence to health, because it was made clear to me that anecdotal evidence is of no interest to a skeptic, only empirical evidence or scientific proof.
Because I cannot offer scientific proof of my experiences, I have nothing further to add, and cannot further my argument. So to save time, I openly admit I cannot prove scientifically that I experienced positive consequence to my health, only explain my perception of it, which is only of interest here because it allows skeptics the perfect opportunity to further their own agendas.
I do find these boards interesting however, so I will continue to log-on and see what's happening. You never know, it might happen that I change my views because of it. Stranger things have happened, and I'm not close-minded to arguments from all sides.