Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The claim isn't worthy of research to validate, so I would accept it on face value.
Something that actually affects the health of people? Much more important. The standards of evidence are appropriate the the claim being made.
It doesn't affect the health of "people". It only affects the health of those who believe, and affects those people positively. If you choose not to believe, it cannot have an affect on you, because of the power of the mind over one's health.
If you believe that you are sick, you will be sick. As for myself, I've never been sick, to my recollection. Because I don't think of myself as a sick person.
All of which is immaterial if I don't actually exist, which I can freely admit is possible.
It doesn't affect the health of "people". It only affects the health of those who believe, and affects those people positively. If you choose not to believe, it cannot have an affect on you, because of the power of the mind over one's health.
And if one chose to believe--it still wouldn't have an effect greater than that of a placebo--which as discussed earlier, is of limited use. If the option was "go to the doctor to get that bullethole fixed" or "just have happy thoughts to have that bullet hole fixed," one is going to win out before you bleed to death.
Quote:
If you believe that you are sick, you will be sick.
Citation Needed.
Quote:
As for myself, I've never been sick, to my recollection. Because I don't think of myself as a sick person.
Personal experience is not empirical evidence.
Quote:
All of which is immaterial if I don't actually exist, which I can freely admit is possible.
But personal experience IS relevant and valid. In fact, it is the only type of evidence that IS valid.
Just because you like Cajun food, doesn't mean everyone must.
As far as the citation goes, these studies are 30 years old--they didn't put them on the Internet. I READ about it. Some people still do that instead of searching for everything they need on the Internet.
Quote:
Enough with the solipsim
If you want someone to prove that God exists, shouldn't we first prove that YOU do? If you understood solipsism, you would know that it assumes that I exist. I don't assume that to be true.
But personal experience IS relevant and valid. In fact, it is the only type of evidence that IS valid.
Just because you like Cajun food, doesn't mean everyone must.
You fail to distinguish between subjective experience and objective reality. Why? Because you insist on solipsism.
I'm not asking about your subjective experience or preferences of Cajun food. Like Sex, we can have personal experiences with Cajun food. Also like sex, it can be studied separate personal experiences--objectively. We can find which ingredients determine "Cajun" food, the history of Cajun, Quantities of Cajun eaten per day, week, month, etc. We can objectively study Cajun food.
Because ALL reality is subjective. Objective reality does NOT exist. I've never wavered from that stance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
