Post by astraia on Aug 2, 2008 1:51:55 GMT
Bro:.Russell,
Technically it can be classified as synesthesia - same way as pain can have a colour for synesthetes, emotions, memories as well, etc. It's based in what some would call a mesocosm - on the one hand it's in the mind's eye - the physical eye can't see it as such - it's similar to visualizing something unseen - now is that visualization in the physical world or not? If you're looking at it experientially, then it's on a threshold really. If you're looking at it scientifically, then it's a firing of synapses in the brain somewhere in reaction to an emotion, producing a sensory perception not produced by the visual field... For me what it's doing is bridging those 'weird' experiences some of us have on occasion and telling me we're not nuts.
Which I guess Bro:. Tamrin may not agree with.
Now, can I ask something Bro:. Tamrin. Have you taken the time and trouble to read Oschman's work for yourself, examine his sources, check his experimentation methodology and then reject it? Because I can assure you that numerous scientific departments in numerous universities across the world have. His work has been printed and cited in academic peer-reviewed journals, textbooks and been presented and cited at international congresses and symposia as far afield as Harvard.
If you wish to cite an antithesis to the information I presented, you might not have chosen one which is blinkered enough to be sadly laughable. I mean, "quackbusters"? The thing is, with correct academic debate, one examines the evidence and posts a riposte worthy of the original thesis presented.
This lady you posted a link to certainly speaks her mind, but beyond that she seems to have missed the fact that alternative, or complementary medicine has now entered the British National Health System (I cannot speak for the USA except to say that the bodywork sector is strictly regulated and booming - see the Bastyr College in Seattle for one good example). Naturopathy and Osteopathy are being taught at Ba and MA level at Westminster University in London, Exeter University runs Naturopathy courses, the Osteopathic School of Medicine has been upgraded to university status, and those are the few I remember off the top of my head.
Precisely because the field has been denigrated for so long, clinical research is double and triple blind, and double and triple repeated. The beauty of it is that breakthroughs have been made precisely because the field has had to fight against the doubt of the establishment, and so have been extra careful in order to allow no loopholes.
I hardly think publishers such as Elsevier, Harcourt and others would be willing to risk their reputations as reputable academic and scientific sources in order to publish baloney. Of course I may be wrong. But I have been in academia long enough to know where I get my sources from, whether I'm reading research or tosh, and also which counter-arguments do and don't hold water. I could, had I the time, the energy, and if I thought it mattered, refute, with hard evidence, including clinical trial evidence, every single point in the above excerpts. But then I would have written a book by now, and I have a different book I'm trying to write. I posted some links for people who might be interested, not to start a polemic.
You have every right to disagree, and I will take Voltaire's position in defending your right to do so. But may I suggest, if you feel so strongly about the issue, that you take the time to look at the material for yourself, judge its worth, look at both sides, and then fault it if fault is to be found, in the same vein in which it was intended?
My offer of supporting articles and sources still stands if yourself, or anyone else is interested.
Technically it can be classified as synesthesia - same way as pain can have a colour for synesthetes, emotions, memories as well, etc. It's based in what some would call a mesocosm - on the one hand it's in the mind's eye - the physical eye can't see it as such - it's similar to visualizing something unseen - now is that visualization in the physical world or not? If you're looking at it experientially, then it's on a threshold really. If you're looking at it scientifically, then it's a firing of synapses in the brain somewhere in reaction to an emotion, producing a sensory perception not produced by the visual field... For me what it's doing is bridging those 'weird' experiences some of us have on occasion and telling me we're not nuts.
Which I guess Bro:. Tamrin may not agree with.
Now, can I ask something Bro:. Tamrin. Have you taken the time and trouble to read Oschman's work for yourself, examine his sources, check his experimentation methodology and then reject it? Because I can assure you that numerous scientific departments in numerous universities across the world have. His work has been printed and cited in academic peer-reviewed journals, textbooks and been presented and cited at international congresses and symposia as far afield as Harvard.
If you wish to cite an antithesis to the information I presented, you might not have chosen one which is blinkered enough to be sadly laughable. I mean, "quackbusters"? The thing is, with correct academic debate, one examines the evidence and posts a riposte worthy of the original thesis presented.
This lady you posted a link to certainly speaks her mind, but beyond that she seems to have missed the fact that alternative, or complementary medicine has now entered the British National Health System (I cannot speak for the USA except to say that the bodywork sector is strictly regulated and booming - see the Bastyr College in Seattle for one good example). Naturopathy and Osteopathy are being taught at Ba and MA level at Westminster University in London, Exeter University runs Naturopathy courses, the Osteopathic School of Medicine has been upgraded to university status, and those are the few I remember off the top of my head.
Precisely because the field has been denigrated for so long, clinical research is double and triple blind, and double and triple repeated. The beauty of it is that breakthroughs have been made precisely because the field has had to fight against the doubt of the establishment, and so have been extra careful in order to allow no loopholes.
I hardly think publishers such as Elsevier, Harcourt and others would be willing to risk their reputations as reputable academic and scientific sources in order to publish baloney. Of course I may be wrong. But I have been in academia long enough to know where I get my sources from, whether I'm reading research or tosh, and also which counter-arguments do and don't hold water. I could, had I the time, the energy, and if I thought it mattered, refute, with hard evidence, including clinical trial evidence, every single point in the above excerpts. But then I would have written a book by now, and I have a different book I'm trying to write. I posted some links for people who might be interested, not to start a polemic.
You have every right to disagree, and I will take Voltaire's position in defending your right to do so. But may I suggest, if you feel so strongly about the issue, that you take the time to look at the material for yourself, judge its worth, look at both sides, and then fault it if fault is to be found, in the same vein in which it was intended?
My offer of supporting articles and sources still stands if yourself, or anyone else is interested.