Questions about Skepticism Effect?

kayveeh · #1 (**permalink**) 4th December 2005, 12:09 PM

Hello,

Skeptics contribute/look too much in other's life and systems. I just thought to contribute and look into them bit dynamically.

Skeptics or pro-conventional system's people discuss too much adversities about homeopathy and other CAMs at many science/skeptic’s forums. Becoming reasonably skeptic in any system can be okay but becoming undue over-skeptic and anti-genic to any mass existing system which is observed and experienced by million of people all over the world since long with least adversities by its community as wells becoming excess and undue believer in their pro-system/s may effect them something first emotionally than probably psycho/phisio-logically.

"Excess of anything/everything is said and considered as bad"

Can you evaluate emotions caused by practicing undue and over-skepticism and their emotional, psycho/phsio-logical impact on their health and on whole humanity in general?

Emotions may be common in over-skeptics: Mis/dis-belief, egoistic superiorities, contradictions, obstinations, desire to harm/kill, doubting nature, self centeredness, selfishness, always looking into others/other dishes, penetrating habits, interferences in other's matters, Mis/dis-belief in their own beings and things, over-belief and blind-faiths in pro-system once satisfied whereas anti against other, over-involvements, biased attitude etc. can be some emotions which they may commonly get and encounter in their day to day life. Can add and evaluate this impact or effect on their health and on humanity.

In short, how can you evaluate over-skepticism's impact on skeptic's, humanity's and homeopathy's health?

Can healing agents i.e. Conventional Medicines in which they believe rather over-believe, cause excess effects+side effects than normal person or than dis-believer in those CMs on one hand AND lesser effects from healing agents of other systems in which they dis/mis-believe and oppose on other hand?

Best wishes

kayveeh · #2 (**permalink**) 5th December 2005, 08:07 AM

I have contributed this thread dedicated to SKEPTICS. I don't know where/why they have gone or avoiding.

Anyway, to do my affection towards them

I contribute furthur,

Quote:

Negative emotions

Thoughts can cause physical abnormalities such as ulcers, indigestion, nervousness and high blood pressure. Thoughts can also depress the immune system, which leads to a wide variety of diseases. Experiencing poor health, and how soon, depends on each person’s heredity, environment, diet and behavior.

An Australian study in the late 1970s showed that when one spouse dies, the other experiences a weakened immune system. This helps explain why grieving spouses have more diseases and a higher death rate than others of similar age.

Other studies have shown that heart patients who are depressed have more heart problems than happier heart patients; depression was a better predictor of problems than physical measurements were.

Cancer is more common in people who suffer a major emotional loss, repress anger and feel helpless. Cancer patients who express their emotions rather than denying them seem to recover more often. The link between emotion and cancer is so strong that some psychological tests are better predictors of cancer than physical exams are.

This does not mean that everyone who has cancer or some other disease has simply thought it upon himself. There are many factors involved in disease; even the best attitude is not going to prevent ill effects from genetic malfunctions and some chemical and biological hazards.

Positive emotions

If negative emotions can weaken the body’s resistance, it is logical that positive emotions might strengthen it, or at least permit it to work as well as it should.

"There is little hard evidence that attitude alone can cure serious disease. There is, however, some real evidence that people can voluntarily improve their own immune function and thus prevent disease" ("The Healing Brain," Psychology Today, March 1987, page 51).

Attitude helps, though, in recovery. In London, cancer patients who had a "fighting spirit" had a 10-year survival rate of 75 percent. Patients who simply accepted the cancer had a rate of only 22 percent. Hope and a strong desire to live are better than helplessness.

Love also has good results. People who are "in love" have more responsive immune systems. Children grow faster in a loving environment; emotionally deprived children develop poorly. Men who have loving wives have a lower risk of chest pains.

"Human companionship can have a marvelous effect on those who are ill. That is, after all, one reason why most of us feel it is important to visit friends and relatives who are hospitalized; we know that such visits speed recovery" (Leonard Sagan, The Health of Nations, page 129).

People who have strong, stable social connections remain healthier. Married people have fewer diseases, survive cancer better and live longer than the unmarried. Families can improve attitudes, give loved ones reason to live, and help with physical needs.

Faith is also powerful. Patients given a placebo – a drug or treatment with no effect – report improvements about a third of the time. In some treatments, the placebo effect is the main source of value. Bitter placebos work better than pleasant ones; injections work better than pills. The important part is that the patient believes that the treatment will work.

In one study of people who survived supposedly incurable cancers, the survivors all had faith in something (in doctors, in medical science or in God); this helped them maintain hope and avoid helplessness.

Do faith, hope and love sound "unscientific"? If so, it is not that such feelings do not exist – it is that science has not yet learned enough about them. But there is a source of additional information that accurately tells us which emotions are helpful and which are harmful.
http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/sane/emotions.htm

Hope this may help.

moopet · #3 (**permalink**) 5th December 2005, 04:49 PM

People on "skeptical" fora define it differently to people on CAM fora.
If somebody is skeptical to the point of being blinkered to conventialism and dismissive of anything controversial, then they're no longer a critical thinker (a phrase a lot of people seem to prefer)

People on CAM fora seem, in my brief (~ 1 year) experience to believe that if someone professes to be a skeptic then they must have a fingers-in-ears lalalala I-can't-hear-you attitude towards anything unconventional. People on skeptical fora think other things. I think it's a step backwards to compartmentalise people like that.

A good scientific mind accepts new ideas when they are shown to be true, and throws out old ideas when they are shown to be false, or updates ideas as necessary to deal with the nature of reality. This is what most skeptics I know profess to, and I can't imagine why anyone would think it a bad way to view the world.

If someone refuses to update their ideas when evidence is presented which conflicts with theire world view, then they're not very scientific, not to mention smart!

All I'm saying is, don't put everyone who calls himself a skeptic into the stupid traditionalist box.

kayveeh · #4 (**permalink**) 5th December 2005, 05:34 PM

I therefore mentioned;

"Becoming reasonably skeptic in any system can be okay but becoming undue over-skeptic and anti-genic to any mass existing system... "

"Excess of anything/everything is said and considered as bad"

Under modern prevailing atmosphere, some skepticism may be necessary, helpful, beneficial and contributing but I just say don't be anti or biased in any system which is yet clear in science but valid/clear in mass....observations and experiences. I think you have read many books on various science subjects, on any not yet known or unclear aspect they just mention politely its reasoning, working etc. couldn't yet be known in science. They don't mention that it is not valid, fraud, fake, killing etc. as nothing is final in science and they always maintain the possibility or hope till any concept is existing in mass. You can't confirm with surety that final and absolute conclusion is already taken by science about homeopathy. It is vary much valid, existing, persisting, growing and legally well practiced in many countries all over the world, so any anti/bad word against it is unjustified and just alike making his own mouth dirty because even science may not come along with them...on need. Other indirect, deep and long term impacts are bit indicative in previous posts and quotes. So just take care and make aware others accordingly...

kayveeh · #5 (**permalink**) 6th December 2005, 02:45 PM

All of us experience a wide range of emotions in our lives. Usually, that's a good thing. But sometimes we have difficulty controlling our emotions, even to the point of letting our emotions control our behavior. Usually, that's not such a good thing.

For many people, negative emotions have become a way of life for so long, they don't realize why happiness perpetually eludes them.

Think positively. Another important key is to think positively, realizing that we all encounter setbacks and obstacles in life. Brooding about them is not the answer. If we rise above self-pity, think positively and learn from our experiences, we can turn a bad experience into a good one.

drskp · #6 (**permalink**) 26th December 2005, 08:37 AM

What is science??Which we name as per our knowledge and understand as per our knowledge and perception or which produce solutions in some problem?
Those who are saying against Homoeopathy in this forum should understand that not only Homoeopaths are participating in this forum but general people whom they say lay man are also participating to get solution for their suffering with a great hope that they will get some solution here cause this is a site(forum) where there are persons with experience to help them.Before saying against a system is it not the duty of ours to think twice about its effects on the mind of a sufferer??
Ever (Those who are criticizing homoeopathy)they asked in any allopathic forum about its side effects and the death rate due to that.
Why dont they ask the Modern medicine Practitioners regarding the treatment of Menstrual troubles, when they don't know why menstrual cycle occurs in 28 days?
why there are so many advises about the food and nutrition, so to say every day its changing.
Every thing in this world is made to end one day or other.As we born and we say we are growing.What is this process-constructive or destructive??
What is the real food for human beings veg or non veg?
Why we are taking food to live or die?
If we take to live why there is death?If we take proper food and live naturally-will there not be any death?Is there any record of death due to old age?Those who follow strict recommendation of modern science are they never died?
So,those who want to know whether homoeopathy is scientific they should learn homoeopathy and do research work to find out instead of giving wrong idea to lay man.

moopet · #7 (**permalink**) 26th December 2005, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drskp

What is science??Which we name as per our knowledge and understand as per our knowledge and perception or which produce solutions in some problem?
Those who are saying against Homoeopathy in this forum should understand that not only Homoeopaths are participating in this forum but general people whom they say lay man are also participating to get solution for their suffering with a great hope that they will get some solution here cause this is a site(forum) where there are persons with experience to help them.Before saying against a system is it not the duty of ours to think twice about its effects on the mind of a sufferer??
Ever (Those who are criticizing homoeopathy)they asked in any allopathic forum about its side effects and the death rate due to that.
Why dont they ask the Modern medicine Practitioners regarding the treatment of Menstrual troubles, when they don't know why menstrual cycle occurs in 28 days?
why there are so many advises about the food and nutrition, so to say every day its changing.
Every thing in this world is made to end one day or other.As we born and we say we are growing.What is this process-constructive or destructive??
What is the real food for human beings veg or non veg?
Why we are taking food to live or die?
If we take to live why there is death?If we take proper food and live naturally-will there not be any death?Is there any record of death due to old age?Those who follow strict recommendation of modern science are they never died?
So,those who want to know whether homoeopathy is scientific they should learn homoeopathy and do research work to find out instead of giving wrong idea to lay man.

I'm sorry, I've re-read that three times now and I still don't have a clue what you're trying to say. You seem to say that in allopathic fora people don't ask about the side effects of homeopathy - but that's because there aren't any effects, let alone side effects.
You say that people die of old age and regular medicine and healthy eating doesn't stop this? But (a) neither does it stop getting hit by a car (irrelevancy) and (b) neither does homeopathy (pointlessness)

You say we shouldn't criticise homeopathy because that might have a detrimental effect on its users. Well, it wouldn't have a detrimental effect on the user of a conventional medicine. But it would on the user of a placebo, so I don't see how anything you say is useful at all.

This category is for people to talk about research and scientific investigation. That's why people ask these questions. To get told they shouldn't ask them because it might make novice homeopaths or patients wonder about the veracity is extremely dubious.

drskp · #8 (**permalink**) 26th December 2005, 06:50 PM

What is conventional??My language says that conventional means(In accord with or being a tradition or practice accepted from the past)This is the proof that Homoeopathic medicines are conventional medicines not placebo as its 200 years of practice and accepted by people of various countries.

moopet · #9 (**permalink**) 26th December 2005, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drskp

What is conventional??My language says that conventional means(In accord with or being a tradition or practice accepted from the past)This is the proof that Homoeopathic medicines are conventional medicines not placebo as its 200 years of practice and accepted by people of various countries.

"Conventional" medicine is a term coined to separate it from "alternative" or "complementary" medicine. In reality there's only "medicine" and "stuff that isn't medicine" but we make these distinctions for ease of use in conversation.

It's nothing to do with tradition. Religions are traditions, but most preclude the existance of each other. People believed the Earth was the centre of the universe for many years. You could call that a tradition. Just because people pass it down to their children doesn't make it true.

drskp · #10 (**permalink**) 27th December 2005, 06:57 PM

moopet,
Sorry to say that what you say alternative and complementary that system is the conventional in my country which we say "Deshiya Chikitcha"(Treatment of the country)and originated since 6000 BC.Bellow is the link by Dr.Manish,which is self expalnatory and challenging.
I dont want to repeat the same and spend time for kidding.
is homeopathy mere placebo?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Electronic V Homeopathy : carol rae	Timokay	Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy	8	22nd October 2008 10:26 PM
Radionics Health - a new homeopathy?	Radionics	Homeopathy Discussion	29	30th November 2005 02:42 PM
Wondering about "Positive" Skepticism by Deepak Chopra	Onyx	Homeopathy Discussion	0	19th October 2005 06:47 AM
Questions to homeopaths, Duration of Action of Remedies	Other Member	Homeopathy Discussion	13	28th February 2005 04:30 AM