From: spok+@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Psi and Scientology
Message-ID: <14149@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 2 Aug 91 00:56:54 GMT
References: <1991Jul22.203524.5493@cadence.com> <leo.680437603@galaxy> <1991Jul30.201224.32437@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 35
Nntp-Posting-Host: mathom.gandalf.cs.cmu.edu

In article <1991Jul30.201224.32437@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >In article <leo.680437603@galaxy>, leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart) writes: >> Do you really think that if there was any merit to this 'visualization' >> technique, it would not already have become widely accepted? >> > >It is currently being used, it has not gained wide favor because it has not >been "scientifically" proven, and since it is a "whatever" force, it probably >never will be.

That doesn't follow. Direct tumor removal works in a significant number of cancer cases (about half of cases brought in to doctors, if I remember correctly). Surely if this "visualization" technique were any good, it should succeed in at least as many. So, you just compare a group of people who try "visualization" to an appropriate control group, and see what happens. If this visualization technique works so well, I'd have expected glowing published results by now. You don't have to worry about how it works; simply establishing THAT it works (better than standard techniques) would be enough to get you accolades all over the place.

Now, many standard cancer treatments have a much better chance of working if the cancer is treated early. The trouble with "visualization", "psychic healing", and other unproven methods is that many people use these INSTEAD of going in to see a doctor, and thus let their cancers develop until they are irrecoverable. Something that simple local surgery could have taken care of in 1989 might well be entrenched and terminal by 1991.

Useful book ref.: William Nolen's _Healing_, which discusses this issue in some detail.

John Ockerbloom -- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ockerbloom@cs.cmu.edu ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom ocker@yalecs.bitnet (forwarded) 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank