|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
 Posted - 09/27/2004 : 17:11:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's why I posed the question, what evidence would it take to have some sort of psychic brain activity remain as the only plausible explanation? Again, besides something repeatable and testable since it may be difficult to recreate the circumstances artificially.
I would submit that if there is no repeatable, testable evidence, then you would be justified in rejecting the claim.
quote:
BTW, John Edwards is an expensive but very good grief counselor if you judge him by his results and not by concerns of fraud. I'm not sure how much harm is caused by believing your loved one is still around or believing that important thing you didn't get to say before someone died has been heard now. Person's calling themselves grief counselors charge just as much in some cases and don't get the best results for the money. And, certainly not many object to the church counseling people their loved one is with god and will be there when the counseled person dies.
There is always harm in lying to someone just to make a buck or to soothe your own fears about death / push your own religious agenda. The bereaved would be much better served by some honest sympathy and support. Bullshit about the dearly departed just retards the healing process.
|
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2004 : 22:17:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
BTW, John Edwards is an expensive but very good grief counselor if you judge him by his results and not by concerns of fraud.
the guy is a former medical administrator.... not a greif counselor, nor anyone with any training in healthcare or medicine, he worked in a hospital business office! He knows how to process your insurance and send you a bill.... And you can't overlook his deciet and fraud, it encompasses everything he currently does. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2004 : 23:13:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I agree with all that Dave except Etta's is not the only case of a very unusual psychic event. And, I agree it doesn't look too promising that any of the unexplained events are explained by psychic phenomena. And, non-psychic explanations are certainly much more likely.
But I still can't rule out the rare case of a real psychic event because the research has not been adequate to do so.
Ok, I'm somewhat perplexed, beskeptigal. Weren't you the self described "practical skeptic?" I seem to recall that you're position on the existence of god (paraphrased more or less) wasn't that there was sufficient evidence to disprove his existence, but rather that the cumulative failure to prove his existence effectively resulted in a disproval. That is, after spending so long searching without results, we must come to the conclusion that the search is fruitless.
I see direct parallels in the search for psychic ability. Despite centuries of people consulting seers and oracles, and decades of empirical research on ESP and the like, no positive validation of such alleged powers has ever been achieved. The stipulation that psychic powers are by their nature quite fickle, and therefore unable to be subjected to controlled testing, seems to me more likely an ad hoc excuse devised simply to avoid testing altogether.
I cannot think of any field test that could satisfy both the rigors of scientific protocols and the "touchy-feely," "I'm getting a ba or na sound" nature of psychic communication--so often complicated by the caveat that the psychic is only relaying the psychic message secondhand from some other alternate/otherworldly personality.
Furthermore, as Dave has pointed out, without a working hypothesis of what it is we're testing for, we have no idea what our controls should be. Magicians and mentalists are useful in eliminating certain known methods of deception, but there shall always remain the possibility that someone has found a new or innovative way to cheat. Even less clear is what the controls should be if the phenomenon is legitimate, and how one would go about determining psychic powers are at work by some process other than default by elimination.
Ultimately, no theory of psychic ability explains the facts better than the explanation that there is no such thing as psychic ability. There will always be a few compelling anecdotes, but so it goes. I don't think there's any reason to conclude that they're anything more than stories. Am I being unduly close-minded? Many would think so. Of course, like all of us here, if someone were to win Randy's million dollar challenge tomorrow I would re-examine my conclusions. But based upon our current understanding, I think the notion that there is such a thing as bona fide psychic ability is clearly in the realm of fancy.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/27/2004 23:20:16 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2004 : 03:19:03 [Permalink]
|
I would love to see someone relieve Randi of the burden of the million dollars. I also suspect that Randi himself would be delighted to see it. He's been searching for it long enough.
But alas, it ain't on. I suppose there is an outside chance that someone somewhere has, or has had some sort of psychic ability. But there is an almost equal chance that the petrified trees beloved by verlch were all shat upon the ground by the moon.
I'd rather draw to an inside straight in a six-hand game than bet into the psychic existance odds.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2004 : 03:36:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ok, I'm somewhat perplexed, beskeptigal. Weren't you the self described "practical skeptic?" I seem to recall that you're position on the existence of god (paraphrased more or less) wasn't that there was sufficient evidence to disprove his existence, but rather that the cumulative failure to prove his existence effectively resulted in a disproval. That is, after spending so long searching without results, we must come to the conclusion that the search is fruitless.
I believe there is evidence no gods exist. First, all religious texts and oral traditions can be evaluated. None contain evidence of gods. Plus, we have anthropology research that provides a non-god explanation for religion.
The difference in overwhelming evidence giving reason to draw a conclusion applies to situations where all the evidence one hasn't evaluated is expected to be similar to all the evidence one has evaluated. In the case of some ESP like events, some of the evidence differs.
Some psychic-like events have not been fully explained.
quote:
Furthermore, as Dave has pointed out, without a working hypothesis of what it is we're testing for, we have no idea what our controls should be. Magicians and mentalists are useful in eliminating certain known methods of deception, but there shall always remain the possibility that someone has found a new or innovative way to cheat. Even less clear is what the controls should be if the phenomenon is legitimate, and how one would go about determining psychic powers are at work by some process other than default by elimination.
I agree, testing the events is a problem. If we could do adequate research we might rule ESP out.
quote:
Ultimately, no theory of psychic ability explains the facts better than the explanation that there is no such thing as psychic ability. There will always be a few compelling anecdotes, but so it goes. I don't think there's any reason to conclude that they're anything more than stories. Am I being unduly close-minded? Many would think so. Of course, like all of us here, if someone were to win Randy's million dollar challenge tomorrow I would re-examine my conclusions. But based upon our current understanding, I think the notion that there is such a thing as bona fide psychic ability is clearly in the realm of fancy.
Of course there is no reason to conclude ESP exists. I agree with everything here except those rare annoying compelling anecdotes leave me with no way to dis-prove ESP as a mechanism. Read what I posted on the other thread for a bit more detail of my thinking here.
BTW, I admit, I just don't think like other people. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2004 : 11:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I don't find it offensive. I can understand how it could be offensive. If my son used that language around the house I would be pretty upset. Of course I'm sure he uses that language with his friends, but I guess that is the point, it should be used in the appropriate situations.
The quote actually kind of cracks me up, only because I think of Frank saying it.
Is anyone ancient enough (like me) to remember seeing Frank Zappa on Saturday Night Live. I liked the skit where he was dating the Coneheads daughter and he fit right in with the family.
I was joking. He made a prediction in an early post that someone would complain about it. I was fullfilling his prophecy.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2004 : 11:53:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
So what do you think? Is there a test for when such a random event exceeds coincidence?
If it can be repeated under controlled (or even stritcly observed) conditions.
Seriously, Zappa cracks me up. But if it's to over the top I'll take it out....
Again, I was joking - fullfilling your prophecy, you know.  |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2004 : 01:30:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
BTW, John Edwards is an expensive but very good grief counselor if you judge him by his results and not by concerns of fraud.
the guy is a former medical administrator.... not a grief counselor, nor anyone with any training in health care or medicine, he worked in a hospital business office! He knows how to process your insurance and send you a bill.... And you can't overlook his deciet and fraud, it encompasses everything he currently does.
You are mixing up what my statement meant with what a paid certified or licensed grief counselor is. No one said he was a formally trained grief counselor.
I know what people go through when they lose love ones. I have watched J. Edwards many times, and he provides comfort and counseling to people who have lost loved ones. It is very obvious that people respond to his statements in a positive way.
You can say it is taking advantage of folks, but why is it OK to charge for grief counseling then?
You can say he doesn't really talk to the dead. But how does it really differ from religious counseling about the supposed afterlife?
I'm sure he's much more effective than many grief counselors.
I'm not sure if he believes it himself or is an outright fraud. An awful lot of psychics do believe in themselves. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/30/2004 01:33:33 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2004 : 09:12:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I know what people go through when they lose love ones. I have watched J. Edwards many times, and he provides comfort and counseling to people who have lost loved ones. It is very obvious that people respond to his statements in a positive way.
Indeed! It goes almost without saying that a person cannot be scammed unless they are willing participants. One must actively suspend, or have little grasp of reason for a scam artist to function successfully. "Because it works" is the rational for most of what goes on in the New Age. Should we as skeptics turn our backs on a scam because some people find comfort there? Do you know how many bogus practices we would have to ignore if our criteria was that whatever the snake oil is, it brings comfort to a few people?
quote:
Beskeptigal:
You can say it is taking advantage of folks, but why is it OK to charge for grief counseling then?
Private sessions with Edward's costs a shit load. Grief councilors have to make a living too. Edward's has a waiting list at least a year long and charges a lot. Grief counselors can be had for the usual price for counseling and often on a sliding scale. Plus they are not pushing baloney...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
You can say he doesn't really talk to the dead. But how does it really differ from religious counseling about the supposed afterlife?
It is one thing to say that your loved on is in heaven. It is another thing to say that your loved one is standing behind you, and for the purposes of communicating with you, alive. Crossed over perhaps but still an entity that can communicate ideas and advice. And since the ideas and advice come from the medium, the memory's you will take home with you from such an encounter are lies. Sure, it is a matter of degree. But the heaven idea still leaves you with the truth of the thing and that is that your loved one is gone for all practical purposes. You must then deal with real grief, which is natural, instead of putting that off indefinitly in favor of a fantasy that at the very least borders on delusional thinking. If facilitated denial is a good thing, I'll eat my hat...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I'm sure he's much more effective than many grief counselors.
Are you saying that there are bad counslors or denial is good for the grieving?
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I'm not sure if he believes it himself or is an outright fraud. An awful lot of psychics do believe in themselves.
You are correct when you say that many psychics believe that they are truly psychic. So? Many homeopaths believe that their crap works too. That is why we are here!
Also, John Edward is a gifted cold reader in the sence that he is affective if you don't know how it's done. His hit to miss ratio is awful. I would bet the bank that Edward's knows exactly what he is doing. That is why his show is taped for 2 hours and cut to a half hour or an hour, with commercials. How would he look if we got to see the whole show without editing? Even with the editing his bullshit flies off the screen... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2004 : 14:17:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Indeed! It goes almost without saying that a person cannot be scammed unless they are willing participants. One must actively suspend, or have little grasp of reason for a scam artist to function successfully. "Because it works" is the rational for most of what goes on in the New Age. Should we as skeptics turn our backs on a scam because some people find comfort there? Do you know how many bogus practices we would have to ignore if our criteria was that whatever the snake oil is, it brings comfort to a few people?
The formula I use is:
What is the benefit.
What is the cost/risk.
What is the alternative that is being missed because the person is choosing the ineffective option.
No one questions the use of chiropractors despite the fact there is no evidence of any effect of their treatments beyond placebo. And, they are dangerous because they cause serious spinal cord damage on occasion.(rupture of artery to cord resulting in quadriplegia)
My point is there is no reason to subject Edward's false claims to scrutiny different than other false claims are subjected to.
Edwards is expensive. Believe it or not, some counselors also charge hundreds of dollars/hour. People paying Edwards know what they are getting. There is a difference when scam artists con people out of money with elaborate schemes that are intended to steal. In the latter case, people often find out they have been cheated and are then much worse off emotionally. And, many of the scams I am thinking of also involve offering some medical cure. That would be adding missed opportunity for effective treatment to the equation.
quote:
It is one thing to say that your loved on is in heaven. It is another thing to say that your loved one is standing behind you, and for the purposes of communicating with you, alive. Crossed over perhaps but still an entity that can communicate ideas and advice. And since the ideas and advice come from the medium, the memory's you will take home with you from such an encounter are lies. Sure, it is a matter of degree. But the heaven idea still leaves you with the truth of the thing and that is that your loved one is gone for all practical purposes.
I think heaven is a lie. And there are many many church rip offs. The question is does the lie or the denial hurt or help?
quote:
You must then deal with real grief, which is natural, instead of putting that off indefinitely in favor of a fantasy that at the very least borders on delusional thinking. If facilitated denial is a good thing, I'll eat my hat...
Well you better start eating because denial is a very important defense mechanism we humans need. Some need more than others.
For example, a paraplegic needs denial that the injury is permanent until acceptance is reached. That isn't bad, it is actually important. To say you need to get the person to accept the loss, as if accepting the loss will matter, is an older version of counseling that has been replaced.
I think you are missing the reality here. What actual outcome that is bad occurs if you deny your loved one is gone? Do you think it keeps the person from moving on? (Edwards counsels people to move on, BTW, in a way that sure looks to me like it helps.) So how does believing your loved one waits in heaven or waits in a nebulous space actually differ? And how does it prevent one from 'moving on'?
quote:
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I'm sure he's much more effective than many grief counselors.
Are you saying that there are bad counselors or denial is good for the grieving?
Absolutely!!! I'm saying both things.
quote:
Also, John Edward is a gifted cold reader in the sence that he is affective if you don't know how it's done.
Of course I know how it is done. I also know how his show is staged. But, like I said, benefit vs cost vs lost opportunity. Since there is no evidence counseling is better, there is no lost opportunity. It boils down to cost benefit and in this case, my observation is he really does provide beneficial grief counseling to these folks.
I wasn't going to say anything about my experience here, but perhaps I should. I have been a nurse for many many years and a nurse practitioner for many more. I have worked with spinal cord injured patients and on a pediatric bone marrow transplant unit, among other places. Grief counseling is a very big part of nursing care. I don't make the statements about Edwards lightly. I have seen his technique and how grieving people respond. They are very much helped by his game. Whether one approves or not is a function of one's moral opinion. What should be the measure of Edward's value is the outcome of the grievers, not the moral opinion of the judges.
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2004 : 23:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Indeed! It goes almost without saying that a person cannot be scammed unless they are willing participants. One must actively suspend, or have little grasp of reason for a scam artist to function successfully. "Because it works" is the rational for most of what goes on in the New Age. Should we as skeptics turn our backs on a scam because some people find comfort there? Do you know how many bogus practices we would have to ignore if our criteria was that whatever the snake oil is, it brings comfort to a few people?
quote:
Beskeptigal:
The formula I use is:
What is the benefit.
What is the cost/risk.
What is the alternative that is being missed because the person is choosing the ineffective option.
Good question. What is the benefit being missed because they see John Edward as a better choice than a legitimate option?
quote:
beskeptigal:
No one questions the use of chiropractors despite the fact there is no evidence of any effect of their treatments beyond placebo. And, they are dangerous because they cause serious spinal cord damage on occasion.(rupture of artery to cord resulting in quadriplegia)
We do question chiropractors for the reasons you have stated.
quote:
My point is there is no reason to subject Edward's false claims to scrutiny different from other false claims are subjected to.
We don't. Edwards is not being singled out. We are equal opportunity skeptics. A false claim is a false claim...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
Edwards is expensive. Believe it or not, some counselors also charge hundreds of dollars/hour.
And many do not. And, free or expensive, a quack cure is no cure at all.
quote:
Beskeptigal:
People paying Edwards know what they are getting.
A skeptic might but most think they are actually communicating with their dead Aunt Sally and that is not what they are getting.
quote:
Beskeptigal:
There is a difference when scam artists con people out of money with elaborate schemes that are intended to steal.
There is no difference between what John Edward does and what you have just described. His whole friggen show is an advertisement for his elaborate scheme to part people from their money. Would you like a list of all the ways Edward's cashes in?
quote:
Beskeptigal
In the latter case, people often find out they have been cheated and are then much worse off emotionally. And, many of the scams I am thinking of also involve offering some medical cure. That would be adding missed opportunity for effective treatment to the equation.
Yes, seeing a psychic instead of seeking treatment for one's emotional reasons for not being able to yet reach acceptance of the death of a loved one (which is a normal event in life) would really be missing an opportunity...
quote:
Me:
You must then deal with real grief, which is natural, instead of putting that off indefinitely in favor of a fantasy that at the very least borders on delusional thinking. If facilitated denial is a good thing, I'll eat my hat...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
Well you better start eating because denial is a very important defense mechanism we humans need. Some need more than others.
I said "facilitated denial." My hat is safe. Denial is a defense mechanism, true. And it is a response to many things. However, I cannot find in any literature the idea that remaining in denial is a preferred state of being.
quote:
Beskeptigal
For example, a paraplegic needs denial that the injury is permanent until acceptance is reached. That isn't bad, it is actually important. To say you need to get the person to accept the loss, as if accepting the loss will matter, is an older version of counseling that has been replaced.
I found on the National Mental Health Associations web site information for people who are grieving. NMHA suggests that denial is one of many emotions someone might feel until they have accepted the loss. You say that leading the person to accepting their loss is an old therapy that has been replaced. Replaced by what? Not accepting?
Interestingly, in a section called "Helping Others Grieve" it suggests not to offer false comfort, which, as you have admitted, is what John Edward's is doing.
http://www.nmha.org/reassurance/coping.cfm
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I think you are missing the reality here. What actual outcome that is bad occurs if you deny your loved one is gone? Do you think it keeps the person from moving on? (Edwards counsels people to move on, BTW, in a way that sure looks to me like it helps.) So how does believing your loved one waits in heaven or waits in a nebulous space actually differ? And how does it prevent one from 'moving on'?
One opportunity cost for choosing to believe a psychics claim about your dead loved one is integrity. I would prefer to have my last memory of my loved one be mine, not the vision that someone ells has conjured up, created for an audience and sold back to me.
You would literally loose your last memory of the loved one.
Another opportunity cost is giving away to a stranger what makes you uniquely individual. You are allowing a stranger, and in this case, a master of deceit, to bring you to closure in what should be a highly personal quest, with his vision, not your own.
quote:
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I'm sure he's much mor |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2004 : 00:55:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
For example, a paraplegic needs denial that the injury is permanent until acceptance is reached.
That's the key phrase. "Until acceptance is reached." Acceptance is still the main goal. That's where the healing happens. Edwards at best delays the healing process, if not subverts it entirely.
You are essentially advocating treating adults as children, telling them that their dead puppy "is living happily on a farm in the country." I cannot agree with such a position. Ultimately, denial is not an acceptible way to deal with trauma.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/01/2004 00:59:42 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2004 : 03:14:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
For example, a paraplegic needs denial that the injury is permanent until acceptance is reached.
That's the key phrase. "Until acceptance is reached." Acceptance is still the main goal. That's where the healing happens. Edwards at best delays the healing process, if not subverts it entirely.
You are essentially advocating treating adults as children, telling them that their dead puppy "is living happily on a farm in the country." I cannot agree with such a position. Ultimately, denial is not an acceptable way to deal with trauma.
Hummy your avatar is an odd choice.
I don't think grief counseling delays healing. The components of Edwards' activities have many of the same components of grief counseling. He helps people resolve conflict they sometime have because of desires to say things to people who are gone. He provides a sense of comfort. He helps people move on.
You have pretty strong opinions. What one must keep in mind is grief counseling has to start from where the patient is. I would be a pretty bad nurse if I tried to lay my beliefs on everyone else.
One has to look at the situation here from a neutral point to evaluate if such a practice is really harming, helping, or having no effect on a patient.
You may feel Edwards techniques treat loss in a dishonest way. Well, should I tell people there is no heaven, no god, and the person is gone, you need to get over it? Of course not. But that is what I believe.
I don't believe Edwards talks to the dead. If we were talking about him to a classroom full of kids, I'd want to be talking about how this practice appears to work. But what right do I have to pass judgment on others in a grieving situation. It is quite different.
The first time I saw the show, it was very noticeable he was providing the components of grief counseling. You may not see it, but it is there. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/02/2004 03:16:03 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2004 : 05:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Hummy your avatar is an odd choice.
It keeps reminding me of the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas. Somehow... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2004 : 12:52:09 [Permalink]
|
Beskeptigal,
I understand that your comments in this reply are meant for H. Humbert's post, but allow me to comment anyway since you apparently didn't approve of the style of my last reply to you and have chosen to ignore me.
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I don't think grief counseling delays healing.
On this we agree.
quote:
Beskeptigal:
The components of Edward's' activities have many of the same components of grief counseling. He helps people resolve conflict they sometime have because of desires to say things to people who are gone. He provides a sense of comfort. He helps people move on.
On this we do not agree. If acceptance is the goal of grief counseling how can a method designed to keep people in denial be good? Humbert makes a good point here by pointing out that it is treating adults like children. Would it be acceptable for you to be lied to if it brings you comfort? If so, how can you criticize religion so? Religion, if nothing ells, brings many people comfort. I believe promoting denial and false comfort sabotage's the grief process that should lead to acceptance. And again, I call upon you to provide me with sources that show that I am wrong about this.
quote:
Beskeptigal:
What one must keep in mind is grief counseling has to start from where the patient is. I would be a pretty bad nurse if I tried to lay my beliefs on everyone else.
True. And that is not was a good grief counselor does...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
One has to look at the situation here from a neutral point to evaluate if such a practice is really harming, helping, or having no effect on a patient.
Are you looking at this from a neutral point of view? You have made disparaging remarks about psychology and psychotherapists here and in other places on this site. Is your bias showing? Again, what evidence beside the anecdotal evidence of a television show edited to cast the best light on itself, can you provide to back up the assertion that there is a real benefit to what is being promoted here. Has anybody tracked the long term effects on those who were "helped" in this way? Sources?
quote:
Beskeptigal:
You may feel Edward's techniques treat loss in a dishonest way. Well, should I tell people there is no heaven, no god, and the person is gone, you need to get over it? Of course not. But that is what I believe.
Again, a person in heaven is gone, for all practical purposes. They are not standing behind you telling you that everything is OK while providing you with a new last memory of them from their crossed over existence. If acceptance of the loss is the goal, this fails the test. At some point even children are allowed to figure out that there is no Santa Clause...
quote:
Beskeptigal:
I don't believe Edward's talks to the dead. If we were talking about him to a classroom full of kids, I'd want to be talking about how this practice appears to work.
Me too. And I think the key phrase here is "how this practice appears to work."
quote:
Beskeptigal:
But what right do I have to pass judgment on others in a grieving situation. It is quite different.
I do not pass any judgments on others in a grieving situation. I question those who offer miracles as a cure for that grief. Would you extend your belief to include psychic surgeons or homeopathics as a reasonable treatment for cancer, because some people think that works? Because that belief gives them comfort? Or would you try to lead those people to a more reasonable approach for the treatment of their condition?
quote:
Beskeptigal:
The first time I saw the show, it was very noticeable he was providing the components of grief counseling. You may not see it, but it is there.
Components perhaps.
But he is also supporting, no, promoting denial as a permanent state of being. It is here that he becomes a quack and it is here that he must be challenged, at least in the area of grief counseling...
If I am wrong about any of this I invite you to offer support for your assertions... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
