Questions to an agnostic

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Felix »

This sentence should read, "since it's mechanisms are electrically and not chemically based" (as is the regeneration of limbs by amphibians).
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by LuckyR »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 21st, 2018, 5:11 am
LuckyR wrote: August 21st, 2018, 3:59 am

Cynical much? But seriously, your description of Modern Medicine is a very common one, especially among folks blessed with good health. Yet in the same breath the rabble usually are chided for going to see their physicians too frequently. Anyone detect a problem with the logic?

Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic.
A couple of things.

If it is your observation that the public is not reprimanded for seeing their physicians too frequently, then our experiences differ. No harm, no foul. But you err in calling my observation: my "claim", since I don't personally believe that this description (which I have heard routinely, even in this thread) is correct.

It is one thing to correctly note that medicine (like practically every facet of modern life) has profit incentives baked into the fabric of it's construction. But it is a giant leap to assume that compared to business, education, government, the clergy and the military that medicine compares unfavorably in the fraction of interactions that adhere to ethical standards (as opposed to profit generating ones).
"As usual... it depends."
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Eduk »

You didn't really answer my point Felix. I understand that you dont have a high scientific literacy. There is no need for us to go back and forth saying 'oh yes I do' and me saying 'oh no you don't'.
What I am asking is what gives you this confidence? I'm not a scientist. And I've not studied acupuncture. I do know that the consensus of expert opinion is that acupuncture has no effect (beyond placebo). I do know that some scientists disagree. But some scientists think vaccines cause auticism so personally I have to go with the consensus.
Now I don't claim this to be fool proof. Ideally I would devote ten years of my life studying acupuncture but I don't really have the inclination. In the absence of my own expertise I have to trust others (to an extent). So I trust the scientific process which has after all provided almost everything that I do on a daily basis.
I don't believe I know more about acupuncture than doctors. Why do you? This is not a rhetorical question.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

LuckyR wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 1:42 am
ThomasHobbes wrote: August 21st, 2018, 5:11 am


Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic.
A couple of things.

If it is your observation that the public is not reprimanded for seeing their physicians too frequently, then our experiences differ. No harm, no foul. But you err in calling my observation: my "claim", since I don't personally believe that this description (which I have heard routinely, even in this thread) is correct.

It is one thing to correctly note that medicine (like practically every facet of modern life) has profit incentives baked into the fabric of it's construction. But it is a giant leap to assume that compared to business, education, government, the clergy and the military that medicine compares unfavorably in the fraction of interactions that adhere to ethical standards (as opposed to profit generating ones).
Philosophy is about clear thinking, and you invoked a claim about "logic".
Nothing in your response begins to deal with my comment, and the fact remains that you logic was faulty.
You have either failed to understand the rather straightforward observation I made, or have chosen to ignore it.
To repeat:
I said; "
Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic."

You have compared a claim Felix made about the nature of medicine with that "fact" that people go to the doctor to often.
There is no link here. The two ideas can go hand in hand perfectly well and perfectly separately.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Felix wrote: August 22nd, 2018, 11:38 pm This sentence should read, "since it's mechanisms are electrically and not chemically based" (as is the regeneration of limbs by amphibians).
This is so bad it is not even wrong.
It's just a collection of disconnected ideas.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Felix »

Eduk: I don't believe I know more about acupuncture than doctors. Why do you?
Which doctors? Most physicians have never researched acupuncture and simply accept the consensus view of it without question. Other physicians have studied it and decided that it was efficacious enough to incorporate it into their practice. I trust the educated opinion of those who understand a subject over those who have not studied it and whose opinion about it is based on the same sort of misinformation presented in that online opinion piece you linked to.
ThomasHobbes: This is so bad it is not even wrong. It's just a collection of disconnected ideas.
That was just a sound-bite. It's a very complicated biological process that would take me a few pages to explain in layman's terms, but nervous system currents which are electrical in nature play a primary role in it.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Felix »

P.S. - In keeping with the thread title, I am agnostic about acupuncture, the theory of how it works makes sense but I can't say whether it works that way in practice.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Aragwen
New Trial Member
Posts: 6
Joined: August 23rd, 2018, 3:14 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Aragwen »

As someone who is a registered nurse and have had acupuncture I am still an 'agnostic'. I researched acupuncture before I had it and there are verified accounts of women who have had caesarean sections using only acupuncture i.e. no anaesthetic-but it didn't work on my painful back!!
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Aragwen wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 3:26 pm and there are verified accounts of women who have had caesarean sections using only acupuncture ...
Any reliable links or references to this?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by LuckyR »

ThomasHobbes wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 5:28 am
LuckyR wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 1:42 am

A couple of things.

If it is your observation that the public is not reprimanded for seeing their physicians too frequently, then our experiences differ. No harm, no foul. But you err in calling my observation: my "claim", since I don't personally believe that this description (which I have heard routinely, even in this thread) is correct.

It is one thing to correctly note that medicine (like practically every facet of modern life) has profit incentives baked into the fabric of it's construction. But it is a giant leap to assume that compared to business, education, government, the clergy and the military that medicine compares unfavorably in the fraction of interactions that adhere to ethical standards (as opposed to profit generating ones).
Philosophy is about clear thinking, and you invoked a claim about "logic".
Nothing in your response begins to deal with my comment, and the fact remains that you logic was faulty.
You have either failed to understand the rather straightforward observation I made, or have chosen to ignore it.
To repeat:
I said; "
Just because Felix has this view on modern medicine in NO WAY impinges on your claim that the 'rabble' are accused of too frequent visits to the GP.
SO, yes, I do in fact detect a problem with logic ; your logic."

You have compared a claim Felix made about the nature of medicine with that "fact" that people go to the doctor to often.
There is no link here. The two ideas can go hand in hand perfectly well and perfectly separately.
You are correct, I erred in assuming that my original post was clear. Your post tells me that I am failing to communicate. Allow me to back the truck up (since my most recent posting addressed some "down the line" issues).

OK. The comment (Felix's) that Modern Medicine is corrupt, implies that the money churning fault with the current system lies with either it's design (currently blameless) or it's practitioners (who are to blame). The consumers of the care (patients) are the victims of this system.

So if patients are normally using the corrupt system, they are blameless victims as above. OTOH, if they are overusing the system, they are: A) to blame for at least part and perhaps most of the money churning and incidentally B) feel that the care has value (as opposed to just snake oil lining the pockets of various entities). On that note (and this I addressed in my response to you) when compared to other domains where money or power is exchanged, Modern Medicine compared favorably to others in the realm of ethics and fidelity. Thus comments on the known shortfalls of Modern Medicine can be logically addressed with: "compared to what?"

I was not trying to imply that one made the other impossible, rather that one opposes the other in a universe where inconsistencies are common and expected (as you pointed out)
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

LuckyR wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 3:55 pm. Thus comments on the known shortfalls of Modern Medicine can be logically addressed with: "compared to what?"

I was not trying to imply that one made the other impossible, rather that one opposes the other in a universe where inconsistencies are common and expected (as you pointed out)
As you presented it, could be implied that there was a break down in logic as if it would be impossible for a corrupt health system to be oversubscribed by those wishing to use it.

My view is that there are many aspect of the system which are corrupt. And alongside that are some of the most brilliant, altruistic, loving and giving humans you could ever hope to meet working in that system. In some ways those paragons of duty and service we call nurses and doctors are in part unwittingly supporting money grabbing wankers whose main aim is to screw as much money out of sick and vulnerable people, and these wankers are not only exploiting suffering patients but the good people who genuinely care for the sick.

I think the claim that health care is exploited by people over using it is poor. Obviously there will always be a minority of hypochondriacs visiting the doctor for minor ailments but I do not think this is significant.
In the US visiting the GP is not fully covered by insurance. If it were then people might want to visit for piffling ailments to get their money's worth. In the UK I can't imagine many would sit in a busy waiting room for no reason at all, - and it can be a bitch to get a convenient appointment.
You might want to argue that A&E is oversubscribed by self inflicted idiots on a Saturday night - true. And little boys with saucepans stuck on their heads - but triage tends to to take care of oversubscription with serious cases getting the care they need.
Many could do with staying away and letting their common cold run its course, but people get genuinely worried about persistent symptoms and a visit can have a reassuring effect. Medicine is all about making people feel better.

You can talk about drugs all day - over prescribed, over designed, under engineered, and aggressively advertised. Pharma does not tend to meet suffering patients face to face. They are money making enterprises, and the move to make really expensive palliative drugs for the cancer "market" rather than work on cheaper curative solutions is scandal.

On the matter of vaccinations. Anti-vaccers and basically idiots, goaded on by the most disgraceful irresponsible media.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Nonetheless. There are thousands of really useful drugs, that are perfectly effective and work exactly are expected, being life saving and of vital importance to those properly prescribed to use them.
I use Allopurinol against gout; a inherited condition which if untreated leads to the build up of crystals of nitric acid in the joints, especially in the extremities. Without Alloprinol I could be rendered immobile.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Eduk »

Exactly Felix you think you know more about acupuncture than trained medical professionals (even going so far as to use the no true Scotsman fallacy). Ie they can't be a professional unless they agree with you. Welcome to the 30% Felix.
Unknown means unknown.
User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by ThomasHobbes »

Eduk wrote: August 23rd, 2018, 4:50 pm Exactly Felix you think you know more about acupuncture than trained medical professionals
Is acupuncture a professional medical practice is a moot point.
Eduk
Posts: 2466
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Questions to an agnostic

Post by Eduk »

Is acupuncture a professional medical practice is a moot point.
Not sure what your point is? I said it is the scientific consensus that acupuncture has no effect. I'm saying that medical professionals (on the whole) understand the scientific consensus (and the science behind the consensus) better than me, or you, or the vast majority of non medical professionals. Of course there are exceptions and very few fields have zero controversy (some obviously have a lot more than others though) so it's not a perfect heuristic. But it is a heuristic. All I am doing is recognising the worth of the scientific method as an epistemological tool which has, so far, more than proven to the best such tool we have access too. And also recognising the worth of experts, in particular the consensus of experts. I can't think of a single subject where I am at odds with scientific consensus, can you think of one?
Again to be clear this is one heuristic, it's not going to be 100% in all cases at all times. I would judge that the chances of acupuncture actually turning out to be real all along approach zero to the point where they may as well be zero. Who knows maybe when I next drop my pen it will stick in mid-air and I will have discovered a new physics and become world famous, I predict the chances approach zero though.
I may as well go further. It's not the only heuristic which leads me to believe acupuncture is woo. This is from the British Acupuncture Council (the second hit after the NHS when I google).
Traditional acupuncture is a healthcare system based on ancient principles which go back nearly two thousand years.
Ignoring the fallacy, I don't trust ancient medicine. They used to practice blood letting and trepanation (spuriously). Medicine has improved year on year. Survival rates have improved year on year. Life expectancy has improved year on year. Quality of life has improved year on year. I don't want cancer treatment from ten years ago let alone two thousand years ago. I can think of no medical science unchanged for two thousand years except something like don't cut your hand off or it will bleed (not sure that counts as medical science?).
and looks at pain and illness as signs that the body is out of balance. The overall aim of acupuncture treatment, then, is to restore the body's equilibrium.
Too vague. This could mean anything. Certainly I couldn't test for equilibrium, except maybe with a balance bar but I don't think that's what they mean.
Traditional acupuncturists believe that the underlying principle of treatment is that illness and pain occur when the body's qi, or vital energy, cannot flow freely.
Again what the hell is qi. How would I test for qi? Much too vague. You get similar vagueness if you wonder how needles are supposed to allow the qi to flow. Needles aren't renowned for making things flow? Also the magical points and exactly where they are is vague. This overall huge vagueness is to be expected, seen as it's all made up and has no effect (beyond placebo).
[quoteAs a consequence of this there are many different styles of acupuncture which share a common root but are distinct and different in their emphasis. You may read of TCM, Five Elements, Stems and Branches, Japanese Meridian Therapy, and many others, all of which have their passionate devotees. The BAcC, though, has long embraced this plurality under the heading "unity in diversity" and sees the variety of approaches as the mark of a healthy profession.[/quote]
Acupuncturists can't even tell you what acupuncture is. It doesn't seem to matter which modality is used, they are all good. Seems unlikely that they would all be as successful as each other unless they all did nothing.
the body responds to acupuncture and its benefits for a wide range of common health conditions. A lot of people have acupuncture to relieve specific aches and pains, such as osteoarthritis of the knee, TMJ, headaches and low back pain, or for common health problems like an overactive bladder. Other people choose acupuncture when they can feel their bodily functions are out of balance, but they have no obvious diagnosis. And many have regular treatments because they find it so beneficial and relaxing.
Again so vague. They can't even tell you what it cures. Other than lots of things, from headaches to overactive bladders. This is another warning sign. When treatments claim to fix a 'wide range' of unrelated things then chances of it being woo rise exponentially with each thing you add to the list. Can anyone think of another treatment which benefits so many things?

Also I can legally perform acupuncture tomorrow. I can't legally perform heart surgery tomorrow. This is because heart surgery has a rather large effect whereas acupuncture does not.

And finally acupuncture is self regulated. Which again makes sense as it has no effect.
Unknown means unknown.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021