Thread: Spiritual Procedures and Events

I thought I would start my own topic so we could discuss spiritual matters without being off topic.

There has been much discussion on the subject of Reiki lately and I would like to show some interesting things about the subject.

I found a site that speciailzes in Reiki, a quote from the site.

Reiki is a method of stress reduction that also promotes healing. It is administered by laying-on hands. Lay practitioners have used it for more than 90 years, and its popularity is growing. A study done in 2007 by the National Health Interview Survey indicates that 1.2 million adults and 161,000 children received one or more sessions of energy healing therapy such as Reiki in the previous year. According to the American Hospital Association, in 2007, 15% or over 800 American hospitals offered Reiki as part of hospital services.

http://www.centerforreikiresearch.org/

I believe that Reiki has value, and that value is shown in the growing number of hospitals that offer it.

I can't understand the anger expressed by some posters, but would like to understand more about it. This is a beginning.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I can't understand the anger expressed by some posters, but would like to understand more about it.

You refused to provide any valid evidence to support your claims about Reiki.
You decried the scientific method as a valid means of building understanding.
You made persistent claims about the existence of a 'life force' based purely on anecdote and 'feelings'.
You accused those who disagreed with you - and I paraphrase this - as being heartless, inhumane brutes.

Those actions were the source of the anger.

I believe I did provide evidence of the value of Reiki.
Yes, I don't believe science promotes understanding between different belief systems.
I do believe in a life force that is knowable through feeling because I can feel it and use it for my benefit and others.
I think your paraphrase is inaccurately harsh.

Now for the anger, why would people get mad at me because I don't think as they do. Everyone in the world is unique with unique belief systems. If this angers some then the reason is emotional. Our emotions are part of the human condition and have a reason for being.

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.

This is an old spiritual principle. You may have heard Yoda say it in StarWars. George Lucas searched through religions and spiritual traditions to form his Jedi Knights in the movies.

No one makes anyone mad, it is fear that causes anger, and this fear is allowed.

One might expect fear if confronted with a Lion in the Jungle. Then the emotions of anger would prepare the body for fight or flight. But anger with another's belief system requires no fight or flight and is out of place in discussions of knowledge.

If this kind of response is allowed to continue it can lead to hate and suffering. Suffering in the form of stress, emotion pain, and even depression.

Spiritual principles are designed to understand and control the emotions so they will be beneficial instead of stressful for the body. The principles can be used without believing in "God." Whatever the word God may mean to you.

Emotions are our allies, they tell us many things, including information. They are our moral watch dogs. Warning us when we have crossed the line. They are essential to living a good life in the physical, one with peace and joy.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe I did provide evidence of the value of Reiki.

I must have missed it. Could you provide us with the author(s), year, title, and publication of the best evidence for the efficacy of reiki? This shouldn't take more than a few seconds of copy/paste for someone so versed in the subject as you.

It'll also benefit those that are arriving at this thread without having read the other, perhaps through Google or just clicking an "interesting" thread title.

These are some Reiki research projects, the internet has a lot of sites showing Reiki studies.

Hand-on healing has been done for thousands of years by millions of practitioners.
To say it is not effective is to cast doubt on the intelligence of these people. Science expects to just walk in and test a procedure to determine if it works of not. With Reiki that is not possible as with many other spiritual healing methods. There are skills and not procedures, they need to be practiced until learned. I was able to bypass the practice by having a near death experience. From that time forward I could feel and use life force energy. I don't believe science will ever be satisfied with scientific testing of Reiki since it is subjective as to the results.

Near death experience research has now shown that brain and consciousness are two separate entities. That consciousness does live after the death of the brain and body.

It is not important what you believe, "what is" is the important element of life.


http://www.reikiresearchfoundation.o...es/Page394.htm

http://home.deds.nl/~reiki/engindex.html

I don't suspect these links will fulfill your requirements, I don't think that possible. Science can't measure thoughts, emotions, and such either but there are there anyway.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Science can't measure thoughts, emotions, and such either but there are there anyway.

Wow. So all those years I spent studying neuroscience, neurobiology, cognition, perception, psychology, and the technology of CAT, MRI, PET, sQuid, even self-reports and galvanic skin responses were based on fantasy and wish thinking (you know... since "science can't measure thoughts, emotions, and such")?

Gosh... I wish I'd known that prior to wasting all that money on my degree. Thanks, Lekatt! I should have spent all of my family fortune in Reiki. It all seems so clear to me now.

Well if you can tell me what someone is thinking through a PET or MRI scan I will have to apologize. But I know you can't, all you can see is brain activity, nothing more. Thoughts have emotions qualities also. Beliefs are just bundles of thoughts. Psychics can sometimes tell what people are thinking.

Science is very limited in what it can measure, spirituality is not limited. I can feel a person emotions just being around them.

The brain mapping scientists use is not an accurate measure of anything. Whether brain activity is coming from the brain or going to the brain is uncertain.

http://aleroy.com/info02.htm

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...955636,00.html

There is so much research now showing the existence of spirituality that it will overwhelm main stream science in a few years.

There is so much research now showing the existence of spirituality that it will overwhelm main stream science in a few years.

You really believe that don't you? All I can say is that if that happens we will all be in a huge bucket of shit.

Could you provide us with the author(s), year, title, and publication of the best evidence for the efficacy of reiki? This shouldn't take more than a few seconds of copy/paste for someone so versed in the subject as you.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

There is so much research now showing the existence of spirituality that it will overwhelm main stream science in a few years.

You really believe that don't you? All I can say is that if that happens we will all be in a huge bucket of shit.

and why would you say that? Is the end of the world approaching?

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Could you provide us with the author(s), year, title, and publication of the best evidence for the efficacy of reiki? This shouldn't take more than a few seconds of copy/paste for someone so versed in the subject as you.

If what I provided is not sufficient you may search the Internet for what you seek. I doubt there is any, "what you would call scientific research" because most scientists ignore the topic of spirituality. Convinced it doesn't matter because it isn't matter.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Could you provide us with the author(s), year, title, and publication of the best evidence for the efficacy of reiki? This shouldn't take more than a few seconds of copy/paste for someone so versed in the subject as you.

If what I provided is not sufficient you may search the Internet for what you seek. I doubt there is any, "what you would call scientific research" because most scientists ignore the topic of spirituality. Convinced it doesn't matter because it isn't matter.

On the contrary, there are many recent papers, edited volumes, and texts written by preeminent researchers in the fields of anthropology, neuroscience, sociology, and biology on topics related to what many perceive as "spirituality."

More to the point, however, its good to see you finally acknowledge that there probably *aren't* any papers or research favorable to reiki in the real scientific literature. The links you provided claim to include "reiki research" but they seem all to be self-congratulatory and self-refereed drivel pseudoscientifically created and published in "journals" with titles that include "alternative medicine" and such. None were published in journals where actual scientists publish. Not on the links you gave anyway.

However, the topic of reiki and "spiritual healing" is fascinating from the point of view of an anthropologist and I find it interesting to watch believers in such woo construct webs of justification and rationalization for their otherwise irrational beliefs.

In order to understand the psychology and irrationality of the pseudoscientific and woo practice known as "reiki," it's helpful to first understand what believers in this bit of woo perceive as actually happening. The term 'reiki' is Japanese and is really two words: "rei" and "ki." The first word, "rei" has several meanings, including "soul" or "ghost." The second, "ki" is a cognate of the Chinese, "qi," which refers to the imagined "life energy" popular among Chinese religion. Together, they seem to refer to "soul energy," but modern woo-woo's who think they practice this believe "[r]eiki is a secular enlightenment system and healing system" that can be "done either hands on, or by distance work (quotes taken from reiki woo site #1 but, contrary to the site, "rei" does not mean "universal")."

The woo-woo believers of reiki are often taught that the energy involved "enters the practitioner through the crown, and then down into the hara. The energy then goes out through the palms of the hands into the person receiving the reiki (woo site #1)." The woo-woo practitioner's process (if you can truly call it that) includes this: "wait to feel the connection with reiki [...] be mindful of the energy [and] ground and center [oneself] in preparation prior to treatment (reiki woo site #1)."

They're taught, and they believe, that they can actually detect a patient's "energy" (reiki woo site #2).

This, of course, is complete nonsense and even demonstrated as such by a pre-adolescent! Emily Rosa showed that practitioners of therapeutic touch and reiki were unable to detected her "energy field" when they couldn't see her hand behind a cardboard screen. In 280 trials, practitioners correctly guessed Emily's hand only 122 times -well within the expectations of chance (Rosa, et al 1998)

In 2008, researchers were curious about the efficacy of reiki (Lee, Pittler, and Ernst 2008), since this woo practice has cropped up at various hospitals and clinics billed as a viable "alternative" to science-based / reality-based medicine. What they found, after identifying 205 potentially relevant studies, nine of which purported to have randomized clinical trials, was that there was no sufficient evidence "to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition."

There is no good reason to accept that the nonsense claims made by those who claim to practice "reiki" are anything but fraud or delusion. Or both.

References

Lee, M.S., M.H. Pittler, E. Ernst (2008). Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 62 (6), 947-954.

Rosa, L. et al (1998). A closer look at therapeutic touch. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1005-1010.

Thanks for showing me the research you were referring to. I can quickly see why no results were obtain in the venture, and why scientific methods of testing do not work on spiritual events.

Reiki is a form of healing through life force energy or Chi as it is called, and no healing was taking place during the research.

There must be a healer that is experienced in Reiki that is willing and capable of helping others. There must be a healee that is willing and capable of being healed before energy exchange can take place.

So the healer who has an excess of Chi passed that Chi to one who needs it. The one who needs it must be open to receiving it or at least open enough to not block the energy. Also there is an intent, or intensity of the healing thoughts that will determine the degree of healing.

The energy is gathered and moved through emotion. The emotion of compassion, the more compassion the more healing. That is why Reiki can be anywhere from not effective to very effective according to all the factors. Even experienced healers can have days when their healing is weak or not effectice.

Healing can be done at a distance as well as face to face.

I have participated in healing circles, and healing groups with some remarkable results.

I had a near death experience because of a heart blockage problem, during the experience I was healed with the life force energy. My doctor had given me 6 months to live, I had the experience about 2 months into this, I had refused surgery, and started to use spiritual healing techniques. In 18 months I was totalled healed. My doctor showed me the tests he run when I first came in and the tests 18 months later saying "I can't tell from the tests you took today there was ever anything wrong with your heart." Then looking at the charts of 18 months previously they were the charts of a very badly blocked heart. It has been 23 years since I was healed.

There are many things in this world science can not measure and never will measure, spirituality is one of them. But we are all spiritual beings, every one.

What a bunch of meaningless tripe. If there's an effect, it can be measured. It truly is that simple. The fact that you don't understand how, or that you prefer using fuzzy and ill-defined terms to describe things which have physical and natural explanation is part of why you are not being taken seriously here.

If there is an effect, we can measure it... and all of the hand-waving spiritual woo and mumbo-jumbo in the world won't change that very simple fact.


Here is what the above discussion seems like to me.
YOU: It's a pretty light with a nice glow.
P2: What frequency is the light?
YOU: It's pretty, and makes me smile.
P2: Okay, but what is the frequency of the light?
YOU: It causes emotive responses, so you are unable to describe it.
P2: Dude, will you answer the question please? What is the frequency of the light?
YOU: There is no material explanation for the spiritual power of this light. Why won't you scientists ever admit that some things just can't be explained by science?
P2: I give up. Your type of ignorance is annoying and despairing. Buh-bye.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a form of healing through life force energy or Chi as it is called,

What is the evidence that this "life force energy" (a.k.a. Chi) exists? To date, there have been many who claim its existance but none who've demonstrated it.

Please produce the evidence or admit your claim is bunk.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a form of healing through life force energy or Chi as it is called,

What is the evidence that this "life force energy" (a.k.a. Chi) exists? To date, there have been many who claim its existance but none who've demonstrated it.

Please produce the evidence or admit your claim is bunk.

I think we have been through this many times before. You have what is available unless you wish to learn Reiki and try it out for yourself. In case you would like to experiment a little you could try this.

Put your hands out in front of you, with the palms about 4 inches apart. Now slowly move your palms in about 2 inches so they are only 2 inches apart, then move them out until they are 4 inches apart again. Do this when you think of it, at least once a day. In about a month or so you should begin to feel a force between your hands. Some take longer, so shorter. When you begin to feel the energy you can start moving your hands farther apart.

Originally Posted by inow

What a bunch of meaningless tripe. If there's an effect, it can be measured. It truly is that simple. The fact that you don't understand how, or that you prefer using fuzzy and ill-defined terms to describe things which have physical and natural explanation is part of why you are not being taken seriously here.

If there is an effect, we can measure it... and all of the hand-waving spiritual woo and mumbo-jumbo in the world won't change that very simple fact.


Here is what the above discussion seems like to me.
YOU: It's a pretty light with a nice glow.
P2: What frequency is the light?
YOU: It's pretty, and makes me smile.
P2: Okay, but what is the frequency of the light?
YOU: It causes emotive responses, so you are unable to describe it.
P2: Dude, will you answer the question please? What is the frequency of the light?
YOU: There is no material explanation for the spiritual power of this light. Why won't you scientists ever admit that some things just can't be explained by science?
P2: I give up. Your type of ignorance is annoying and despairing. Buh-bye.

I am always amazed that one who has not experienced nor even studied the phenomenon seems to know more about it than one who has experienced in it.

But it happens among skeptics all the time.

Bye

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I am always amazed that one who has not experienced nor even studied the phenomenon seems to know more about it than one who has experienced in it.

Considering the years I spent training in kung fu and tai chi, I find it humorous that you are here now suggesting that I have not "experienced" this sensation or studied it. What I have found is that "chi" is little more than a rhetorical shorthand used by people who do not understand the basic underlying mechanisms of neural propagation, bloodflow, and proprioception. Worse, despite your obvious lack of understanding, you go on to make extravagant claims about this "life force" and "energy" without defining your terms precisely. You then talk about healing and other unsupported crap, and when asked you seem to have no problem entirely skirting the requirement for evidence in support.

You want to believe it so badly that it appears you don't even care to trouble yourself with trying to understand it or ensuring that your claims are valid and based in reality.

What you've been suggesting here is little more than hogwash. There are health effects of exercise, and bloodflow, and increasing the density of neural webs, and you'd do well to figure out that side of the equation when trying make the claims you are. Right now, you've contented yourself with hand waving and wish thinking and it's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a form of healing through life force energy or Chi as it is called,

What is the evidence that this "life force energy" (a.k.a. Chi) exists? To date, there have been many who claim its existance but none who've demonstrated it.

Please produce the evidence or admit your claim is bunk.

I think we have been through this many times before. You have what is available unless you wish to learn Reiki and try it out for yourself. In case you would like to experiment a little you could try this.

So there's nothing to support your claim other than you desire for the universe to be magical in a way you want it to. I'm afraid the imagination of you and others who subscribe to this sort of woo isn't enough to accept as a worthy topic in a science forum. If you're willing to discuss the issue here, surely you're willing to discuss it scientifically. And, yet, you do not.

We're not willing to stoop to the woo level on this. Either you want to have a scientific discussion on scientific terms, or you don't.

Put your hands out in front of you, with the palms about 4 inches apart. Now slowly move your palms in about 2 inches so they are only 2 inches apart, then move them out until they are 4 inches apart again. Do this when you think of it, at least once a day. In about a month or so you should begin to feel a force between your hands. Some take longer, so shorter. When you begin to feel the energy you can start moving your hands farther apart.

At a distance of 2 inches, one would be lucky to even feel heat -and then probably not because one's body heat is the same from one hand to another. You might feel the heat of someone else if they were to raise their body temperature through exercise, but otherwise there's no reason to expect to feel any "energy."

Clearly, you and other believers in reiki are just making shit up and passing it off as real.

Don't expect us to buy it.

I am not selling anything, I am helping hundreds of people.

You can not sit down at a piano for the first time and play a perfect "Fur Elise." Neither can you feel the life force energy on the first try.

Practice makes the skill in all things.

If you don't wish to believe and therefor will not practice then you will never know what is truth and what isn't.

Lekatt, your "healing powers" do have an effect, similar to how Mesmerism and other unproven, non-physical methods do. It is the Psychosomatic effect. It is well documented as the placebo effect. Do you have any proof that you have healed any serious illnesses other than ones where a psychosomatic effect can be an explanation? Don't you think a simple psychosomatic effect can explain how people feel better after you have convinced them that waving your hands over them helps?

Secondly, how in the world can you use that palms apart practice thingy as any kind of proof that what you think is going on is actually going on? Are you not aware of the bizarre array of nonsense people have been able to convince themselves of historically? Don't you think those people had the same surety you have?

psychosomatic=mind/body, yes that is what spirituality is all about. That is what Reiki is about also. Have I healed any serious illnesses. I have helped others heal their serious illiness. It is the energy that heals, compassion love energy. Some of the religious people call it God that heals. I am only the middleman.

My site helps as many people as I do on a personal basis. I do have a few emails thanking me for my efforts if you care to read them. No they are not proof, just people who have been helped.

http://aleroy.com/Letters.htm

I'm suddenly reminded of a quote from P.T. Barnum. What was it he said again?

Originally Posted by inow

I'm suddenly reminded of a quote from P.T. Barnum. What was it he said again?

"There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum (1810 – 1891),

From "WikiAnswers":
In 2007 there were 134 000 000 babies born/yr divided by 525 600 minutes/yr = 255 babies born every minute.

Lekatt, all you've shown us by way of evidence is your blog and some websites that proceed from the assumption that reiki works. Unless you've got more to share with us, it's pretty hard to see what the point of this thread is. And more to the point, it seems to repeat the same discussions we were having in the reiki thread. Why do we need two threads on this?

I'm going to consider merging these threads, and if the discussion doesn't actually move forward, I'm may consider a lock or just chucking redundant posts in the trash.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Lekatt, all you've shown us by way of evidence is your blog and some websites that proceed from the assumption that reiki works. Unless you've got more to share with us, it's pretty hard to see what the point of this thread is. And more to the point, it seems to repeat the same discussions we were having in the reiki thread. Why do we need two threads on this?

I'm going to consider merging these threads, and if the discussion doesn't actually move forward, I'm may consider a lock or just chucking redundant posts in the trash.

I started this thread at the suggestion of SkinWalker. So I could discuss spiritual events without being off-topic.

We have covered the fact that scientific studies that would be approve by skeptics just don't exist. We have shown why the study done by the 10 year old girl did not show any positive results.

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

Now if you wish to lock this thread, be my guest. How could I stop you anyway. It really makes no difference how long skeptics deny the existence of a spiritual force. That force will not go away, and only more hospitals will be using it in the future.

I was going to talk about near death experiences here and show real research done by Universities and scientists. This research is solid and shows there is life after death. I know this subjects scares the bejeebers out of skeptics due to the vested interests they have in science. But all things change and grow, and science will do that as time goes by. I believe both science and religions will be impacted by near death research in the future. Both will change dramatically and become better for it. Service to the public will be better and kinder.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

You strike me as a person who is completely oblivious to the concept of a confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

You strike me as a person who is completely oblivious to the concept of a confirmation bias.

I am knowledgable in the meaning of confirmations bias, enough to know like a two edged sword it cuts in both directions. I know a great deal about science and quantum mechanics also.

The placebo effect which is accepted by science as valid is an example of mind over matter. It shows that a thought can effect the body in a positive way to cause healing. It can also affect the body in a negative way.

Reiki is a system of mind over body healing not unlike the placebo effect. So where is the confirmation bias now.

I was going to talk about near death experiences here and show real research done by Universities and scientists. This research is solid and shows there is life after death. I know this subjects scares the bejeebers out of skeptics due to the vested interests they have in science.

The words in this quote are self-contradicting. You first claim to have "real research" done by real "scientists." Then you claim (and I paraphrase) that interest and trust in science raises questions about this.

In addition, you haven't demonstrated where there is a fear among skeptics regarding this sort of thing. The phrase "scares the bejeebers" would indicate more than apprehension, yet there are no examples of associated phobias -it's clear that this is an ad hominem argument in the form of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that if there were evidence of an afterlife (and there isn't), then scientists would be all over it. I would be elated. I'd much rather know that there is a continuance of my life beyond bodily death. But, as a rationalist and one who isn't given to fantasy or delusion, I see no good reason to waste the one life I have believing in something that is so clearly the product of imagination, cultural tradition, and ignorance.

From the point of view of the irrational believer, the only way to justify why others might dare to be skeptical of things like an 'afterlife' is "fear." I'm not sure, precisely, what I'm supposed to be afraid of, but "fear" is, without a doubt, a factor. But it's on the part of the believer, afraid of his own mortality and limited existence, who projects that fear on the rational -who've accepted their limited lifespans on the condition that they will spend those lives working out how to prolong them or continue them scientifically (perhaps we may one day download the sum of our thoughts and neural system to a technological surrogate for the human brain).

But, please, continue your justifications and apologetics for irrational thought and behavior. I'm finding it fascinating and interesting from a scientific perspective.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

The placebo effect which is accepted by science as valid is an example of mind over matter. It shows that a thought can effect the body in a positive way to cause healing. It can also affect the body in a negative way.

Reiki is a system of mind over body healing not unlike the placebo effect. So where is the confirmation bias now.

This is untrue. The placebo effect is accepted as an individual's own thoughts affecting the outcome of his own body to heal itself through mechanisms that are naturally understood (as opposed to supernaturally). The human body has it's own methods of fighting disease or injury (T-cells, phagocytosis, fever, etc.) and these naturally occurring processes are affected by signals from the brain. The brain signals are affected by neurochemical reactions (various reuptakes and transmittals of molecules of dopamine, endorphines, acetylcholine, serotonin, etc. -even nitric oxide).

A fair amount of study has been done on the placebo effect and it is fairly understood by researchers (actual researchers) and actual medical professionals who keep up with the literature that patient perception and expectations are key to inducing the effect. It doesn't work on patients who aren't conscious.

Sham treatments like reiki depend on independent neurochemical effects of a conscious patient to provide "treatment." And, because some people respond to reiki in a placebo manner, in no way implies that reiki is valid, real, or legitimate. Indeed, it implies quite the opposite and I'm surprised whenever I see woo practitioners of things like reiki cite "placebo effect" as if there is some sort of vindication of their nutty claims.

Reiki nutters claim that they can not only treat patients but that they can detect and manipulate some, as yet to be discovered, "energy field."

This is a complete fabrication and a bald-faced lie and/or a delusion of people who believe in this rubbish.

And, yes, I'm calling you a fool if you believe that you can actually do this.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

You strike me as a person who is completely oblivious to the concept of a confirmation bias.

I am knowledgable in the meaning of confirmations bias, enough to know like a two edged sword it cuts in both directions. I know a great deal about science and quantum mechanics also.

The placebo effect which is accepted by science as valid is an example of mind over matter. It shows that a thought can effect the body in a positive way to cause healing.

Actually, it has only been shown to mitigate pain and to reduce emotional problems. Not sure we'd call that healing.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a system of mind over body healing not unlike the placebo effect.

That's not a very good argument. Would you say that just because the placebo effect works, that any and all assertions about the mind healing the body are credible? If not, then why is this an argument in support of reiki? Take it further, is evidence that the mind may heal the body attached to that mind also an indication that an unattached mind may do the same?

Originally Posted by Lekatt

So where is the confirmation bias now.

Seriously don't think you've grasped what it means. You just pointed to one piece of scientific evidence (placebo effect) as evidence in your support, but you reject the scientific evidence which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki. Both pieces of evidence are based on large scale controlled studies but you accept one and reject the other on the basis that one agrees with you and the other does not- or at least that is how it seems as you have refused to refute that evidence. That is confirmation bias, the dismissal of evidence on poor grounds in line with a preconception.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Lekatt, all you've shown us by way of evidence is your blog and some websites that proceed from the assumption that reiki works. Unless you've got more to share with us, it's pretty hard to see what the point of this thread is. And more to the point, it seems to repeat the same discussions we were having in the reiki thread. Why do we need two threads on this?

I'm going to consider merging these threads, and if the discussion doesn't actually move forward, I'm may consider a lock or just chucking redundant posts in the trash.

I actually did recommend he start a new thread since the other is from the perspective of skepticism regarding reiki and he was polluting it with woo.

I've always liked it when the pseudoscience forum was used to discuss the nature of pseudoscience and the effects woo have on genuine science and it irks me when threads get hijacked for the woo cause. Perhaps we should have a practice where we edit thread titles with "[WOO]" at the beginning so readers know that the perspective is one of fantasy, speculation, or pseudoscientific thought rather than scientific or rational thought.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

You strike me as a person who is completely oblivious to the concept of a confirmation bias.

I am knowledgable in the meaning of confirmations bias, enough to know like a two edged sword it cuts in both directions. I know a great deal about science and quantum mechanics also.

The placebo effect which is accepted by science as valid is an example of mind over matter. It shows that a thought can effect the body in a positive way to cause healing.

Actually, it has only been shown to mitigate pain and to reduce emotional problems. Not sure we'd call that healing.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a system of mind over body healing not unlike the placebo effect.

That's not a very good argument. Would you say that just because the placebo effect works, that any and all assertions about the mind healing the body are credible? If not, then why is this an argument in support of reiki? Take it further, is evidence that the mind may heal the body attached to that mind also an indication that an unattached mind may do the same?

Originally Posted by Lekatt

So where is the confirmation bias now.

Seriously don't think you've grasped what it means. You just pointed to one piece of scientific evidence (placebo effect) as evidence in your support, but you reject the scientific evidence which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki. Both pieces of evidence are based on large scale controlled studies but you accept one and reject the other on the basis that one agrees with you and the other does not- or at least that is how it seems as you have refused to refute that evidence. That is confirmation bias, the dismissal of evidence on poor grounds in line with a preconception.

Please show me your scientific evidence that which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki.

http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/ScienceMeasures.htm

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Please show me your scientific evidence that which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki.

Lee, M.S., M.H. Pittler, E. Ernst (2008). Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 62 (6), 947-954.

Rosa, L. et al (1998). A closer look at therapeutic touch. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1005-1010.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Please show me your scientific evidence that which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki.

Lee, M.S., M.H. Pittler, E. Ernst (2008). Effects of reiki in clinical practice: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 62 (6), 947-954.

Rosa, L. et al (1998). A closer look at therapeutic touch. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1005-1010.

Links please

You might try your local library. Science isn't done through links. These are print journals.

Here is a link to the article.

The more relevant article is actually Lee, Pittler, and Ernst. They reviewed the reiki studies that were most "efficacious" and came up with no good reason to think reiki works.

Yes, but my quick and simple search didn't get me any results for the first article

Try here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...18316/abstract

In conclusion, the evidence is insufficient to suggest that reiki is an effective treatment for any condition. Therefore the value of reiki remains unproven.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Here is a link to the article.

Thank you for supplying the link, however, the research does not measure therapeutic touch, or Reiki. It measures whether someone's hand can be detected or not. TT is an interactive event as with Reiki. Some individuals may have a lot of energy while others almost none at all. This is not a test of TT.

1) its the same bullshit.

2) but since the word "reiki" wasn't mentioned, I leave you with the first (and more relevant, as I said earlier).

It's just what happens in TT or Reiki.

A practitioner of TT may be dealing with a person whose force field is so low as to be undetectable. Why would you think testing the position of hands would have anything to do with TT.

Most people can not detect their own FF without much practice. Go to India where this is used a lot. There are some there it is impossible to shake hands with due to the heat in their palms.

Gibberish. What is the evidence of a "force field." How can it be measured? What instrument(s)?

What evidence is there that a person can be that instrument?

Complete gibberish.

Go on to the second reference. I briefly outlined the methods and conclusions in a previous post on page one of this thread.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Gibberish. What is the evidence of a "force field." How can it be measured? What instrument(s)?

What evidence is there that a person can be that instrument?

Complete gibberish.

Go on to the second reference. I briefly outlined the methods and conclusions in a previous post on page one of this thread.

I made a mistake in posting here. It seems the world is still seen as either black or white in this forum, and whoever is not like me is my enemy. The level of emotional growth is not enough to allow perception of the many shades of gray physical life is all about. My mistake, sorry.

Lekatt; The issue is not that we aren't of the proper level of emotional growth, but that you come to a science forum, a place where the tenants of the scientific method supersede the evidence of anecdotes, and decide to give us no practical way to empirically test your claim while giving us solely anecdotal evidence to support it. Reiki is untestable as the practitioners and supporters deny that any of the tests that yeild negative results for reiki are done right. The issue is not with the science, as the science is sound; it's with those who refuse to believe that the science is sound.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Lekatt

I believe dozens of testimonies by people who have been helped by Reiki, hundreds of hospitals offering Reiki treatments, and many clinics, vets, and others plus the hands-on healing method being used for thousands of years by millions of practioners would be enough evidence to consider it useful.

You strike me as a person who is completely oblivious to the concept of a confirmation bias.

I am knowledgable in the meaning of confirmations bias, enough to know like a two edged sword it cuts in both directions. I know a great deal about science and quantum mechanics also.

The placebo effect which is accepted by science as valid is an example of mind over matter. It shows that a thought can effect the body in a positive way to cause healing.

Actually, it has only been shown to mitigate pain and to reduce emotional problems. Not sure we'd call that healing.

Originally Posted by Lekatt

Reiki is a system of mind over body healing not unlike the placebo effect.

That's not a very good argument. Would you say that just because the placebo effect works, that any and all assertions about the mind healing the body are credible? If not, then why is this an argument in support of reiki? Take it further, is evidence that the mind may heal the body attached to that mind also an indication that an unattached mind may do the same?

Originally Posted by Lekatt

So where is the confirmation bias now.

Seriously don't think you've grasped what it means. You just pointed to one piece of scientific evidence (placebo effect) as evidence in your support, but you reject the scientific evidence which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki. Both pieces of evidence are based on large scale controlled studies but you accept one and reject the other on the basis that one agrees with you and the other does not- or at least that is how it seems as you have refused to refute that evidence. That is confirmation bias, the dismissal of evidence on poor grounds in line with a preconception.

Please show me your scientific evidence that which shows a failure to establish the efficacy of reiki.

http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/ScienceMeasures.htm

I have given you the same source on that several times already. Skin has given it to you twice. Lee et al. 2008. If you would like more details from that source you can PM me.