Holistic Doctors, and medicine

Logically, that statement has no merit. Science does not say personal experience is meaningless. This is an appeal to science as an authority."meaningless" isn't altogether true. If only you exist, in a scientific arrogant-bubble, then yes, our experiences are meaningless. But logic tells us that our experiences can be entirely true, regardless of any experiment. This is because science doesn't own truth, but shows us a small part of it.From a logical perspective, personal experience is not meaningless. Since science only has merit because of logic, then there is no reason to automatically rule out personal testimony. When I say that I shaved this morning, you don't have to conclude I didn't because your ideology makes you think that science says that my anecdotal evidence is unreliable.So, if I say my prayer was answered, am I all of a sudden mentally ill? I think not, and that is considering scientific rules such as memory-bias etc...for those things themselves only pertain to what one can conclude, and are entirely meaningless as to the truth of our experience.Since science only works because of logic, then one must observe the epistemological and logical rules which allow that personal experience it meaningful.One example of taking the scientific viewpoint as the ultimately correct position, is the compositional problems that arrive, BECAUSE of theory being generally inductive logic.Deductive logic trumps science. Unfortunately, theories and postulations are inductive, so can in no way be superior to what logic can prove deductively.Induction will lead you to two main problems usually. Exclusivity and slothful induction. Two important fallacies. Many psychologists make mistakes because they think that a general result will "trump" a specific circumstance. Infact, the power of a falsification is ironically ignored. Falsification is very important to science - BECAUSE induction is such a poor mechanism.What logic states is that a specific instance and a general instance can both exist. You therefore have to make illogical assumption that only stem from your own propositions.For example, inductively, you will collect examples of prayers, in prayer studies, and the science will tell you that there are no positive results. This does not deductively mean that an individual's experiences outside of experimentation, are therefore meaningless or not true.This is why a logical standpoint is superior to a scientific standpoint.So - my spiritual experiences are irrelevant - but only directly pertaining to scientific results. But ultimately, logic allows that this does not mean that my experiences are false or meaningless.So when science-fans such as yourself, make arrogant statements, it is quite allright - as long as you know that logic, the master of science, tells me that your particular ideological group's opinions, are without merit. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This is a prime example of not considering what happens outside of the arrogant little experiment.For even if these results show you that nothing is happening, the point is that this will not prove that wholistic health plan was not beneficial to Buzsaw and his family, for example.Logically, you've removed the truth of an experience, by saying something about other experiences.This is the ultimate error - that you jump too far, audiatur et altera pars.You can say nothing moe than yur results, but it won't prove that faith in these measures is false.

I have hayfever and take chlorphenamine maleate. Apprently works on hayfever, skin allergies, food allergies, pet allergies, mould spores etc.Does this mean, in your opinion, it will certainly work on an individual with one of these problems?

I quite agree. It is not perfect knowledge.A picture beginning to form is infact a colloquial-irrelevancy, and from thereon you have opinion. You can't just drop parsimony when it suits.There are factors which logic dictates, which experimentation can never account for. An example can be given;Prayer, in faith, to God - who will respond, is by it's definition impossible to replicate without assuming a number of factors;1. That God will play ball.
2. That God's answer isn't what we were expecting. etc.You might handwave these objections away, but, science only has credence because of logic. When science is proved effective, then what it really does is it gives logic credence.Since logic has credence, and had credence before science, through epistemological inquiry, then we are obliged to observe logic, and what is says, above science.These factors I have mentioned, are logical. There are many such like problems that "science" which is generally inductive-based, is weak to.On these grounds shraff - you can never win. You can never prove our faith is false, no matter how badly you want science to do that for you.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

The picture that forms.What is that exactly?That under certain conditioned circumstances, you get certain results, based on the conditions ONLY. Anything outside those tests, are not under evaluation, nor are they regulated by potentially faulty implications. Such as;If God answered prayer, then he'd get better.What is actually proved, is that the experiments work under their own rules. But you Shraff, blindly treat them as some kind of unbreakable absolutely conclusive activity.Science is tentative is it not? Even the scientists must agree with everything I have said. They know they have to.

I already know why anecdotal evidence isn't assumed to automatically be true.This doesn't prove that science insists that anecdotal evidence is necessarily meaningless. I think you want science to insist that it is meaningless.- The real problem is this; what if the subject's story was true? Then what?Since many will be true - it proves logically that science itself isn't perfect. That's why logic doesn't say that testimony is irrelevant.That's exactly the problem with the limits of science. You can't just stop at science, otherwise you can make the mistake of thinking that something outside of science is false or irrelevant, simply because they can never be proved scientifically.The process of logic never stops with "science says". It just becomes more complicated.Think about it. You say you will only accept that which is evidenced, yet here, when somebody only has their testimony as evidence, even if their testimony is true, it is unacceptable.True = unacceptable therefore regarded as false
false= unacceptable therefore regarded as falseThat's a nice neat way of making it impossible for something to have credence, even if it's true. it also seems obtuse.By all means disbelieve testimony, but that won't make it any less true, or relevant.Truth doesn't stop at science. Science doesn't own truth. Logic allows that testimony is relevant.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

It's true that many many people could use the "believe then see" card as an ad hoc means of escape.But again, it's very vague to simply handwave away that which is inherently dependent upon faith because so many propositions are proved nonsense. Infact belief in God is the core element of the bible, for example.The NT in particular, is all about faith and it is inherent to it. which means that it would be a pre-hoc error to say that bible belief, for example = false.Your example is that of reductio ad absurdum."If believe then see ....then this silly example".The problem with the implication is that it is vague to say the least.I could give an example of believing you can walk a tightrope, and indeed, this would stem your fears.So we can't dismiss ALL belief based on ONE absurdum.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This is the key here. Preventative measures. The bible shows us a God who doesn't say; "sin now, fix it later". It shows us a God who stops the CAUSE of the problem, NOT the effects. Whereas the world deals in effects.People like Shraff want you to be worldly - and accept those worldly toxins, and sin-agents so you can then go to the doctor, and shraff can say; "see - we can fix the problem, not God, he can't fix anything".You see - this perversely puts the emphasis on God - when infact many illnesses and sin come because we don't obey God and we sin. Sexually transmitted diseases for example.An example;The worldly: "Sure - have sex - then we'll just abort, no problem."See - treating the effect, rather than the cause. Whereas God would say;"Do not fornicate - keep the principles of marriage and the family".You see the problem. Satan is the agent that says "Do X then you will get Y."And when you get Z, satan says; "see - God can't do anything right".

No Shraff - you couldn't possibly know of those who were healed of it, or were prevented from getting it. Nice try. Incorrect induction. First you need to prove who prayed. Then you need to know their destiny. Then you need to know who had believing faith, and not doubting desperation. Then you need to know if God considered them genuine followers. Then you need to know the figure that God saved - for all you know, the rest of the planet. None of this information you have - therefore your argument from ignorance isn't special information to me. It seems you have ignored most of my all-refuting facts of irrefutableness.

Maybe religo-mike took over me for a moment.I admitt you don't actually argue that, but it was an effective bait. My point really, is that those of the Godless ilk, would prefer sin-then-fix-freedom. I think God teaches the
ways to avoid bad things that works effectively.There are so many worldy poisons that the Godless are hooked on. Cancer causing fags for example.What is your opinion? That preventing the cause is a better idea, or dealing with effects?