Comments for How's Your Health, Skeptics? at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 31 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:00:49 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-8045 God is dead. - BillyJoe Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:32:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-8041 Sorry, I tend to agree with Noadi. I think all the sarcasm, politics or dietary equivocations miss the point entirely. There is a simpler explanation for this than skewered studies, and everyone can learn from it. Simple social, personal networking - of any kind - can support physical and mental health. At the risk of ruffling a few feathers here, I honestly don't think even the suggestion of more frequent and widespread skeptic get-togethers will quite have the same effect. Many churchgoers (certainly not all) generally share some obligations with other members. It may be simple emotional, personal and supportive customs. It could be as basic as bringing food to grieving families, checking up on the sick, babysitting kids, driving the elderly around. etc. Yeah, they may seem benighted, bigoted, and superstitious to outsiders, but those are not the actual things that really make many people want to join or stay with them. When you are "in" with the program, you can expect at least some of the "love one another" ethic being practiced within the normal, "mainstream" faiths. Honestly, if I'd go to a skeptics meeting, I'd only expect stimulating conversation, insights, maybe activism and a few good magic tricks. But skeptics, by definition, tend to be "Free Thinkers." They pride themselves on NOT blindly following doctrines, beliefs or strict behavioral or cultural codes. They may, as a group, agree on some charitable and ethical standards for themselves. But I'd expect they'd be less willing to codify it or socially pressure each other to follow it. They may individually support extensive government, social or political programs - but these don't always fulfill those basic human needs that personal networks do. Just being honest here, and I expect some will bring up counter-examples to this argument. - ladolphus Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:43:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7967 seriously calm down buckaroo, your initial comment was sufficient to air your point. There was no need to complain about the criticism of your... criticism. Honestly, if one's critique is sound and made without malice then it should be able to survive some stick poking. Your follow up only made your original post sound whiny. BTW, skeptics do have senses of humor and often make use of hyperbole to expose the narrow, stereotypical views of those who would attempt to marginalize an opposing voice with flawed studies. I think it was awfully unfair to suggest that anyone was being anything other than a descent human being based on a comment left on a very open blog. Also, I voted you down 'cause you're a doody-head! - Zen66 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:06:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7966 False dichotomies, overgeneralizations, demonization, appeals to emotion, name-calling, the merciless evisceration of long-dead horses--hopefully that isn't "what we've come to as a skeptical community". - tctheunbeliever Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:47:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7963 [quote]No, actually, that was based on the 20 or so votes.[/quote]Oops, yes, you're right...sorry, I've given up reading the votes, they rarely make any sense. [quote]And apparently criticism isn't much appreciated, since it just gets voted to obscurity so no one has to think about it.[/quote]Your observation agrees with mine, hence the reason why I pay no attention to them. [quote] That's exactly what they do at those fundy sites. How disheartening to think that's what we've come to as a skeptical community.[/quote]Again, I agree. If you dare say anything against Randi, for example, even just pointing out what should be for everyone a glaring error, you are pilloried for it. I think all sites have their share of unquestioning acolytes. It's the nature of the game I think. [quote]Well, thank you for responding, in any case. And BJ. Some hope yet, perhaps; even if you don't agree [/quote]Well, as you see there is quite a bit of agreement :) [quote]Though, even taken as sarcasm, I think those comments were out of line and unhelpful.[/quote]I have no problem with sarcasm. But, to quarantee negative votes, you should try humour! That seems to be a completely no go zone. BJ - BillyJoe Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:19:57 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7962 I do think that there may be something said for the social group and close bonding idea. It has been shown that social factors do affect health. However, you can bond and be part of a close knit group without believing in some ridiculous fantasy of a big daddy in the sky. - rini6 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:56:24 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7961 @ziztur [quote]Assuming that our silence means we are "nodding happily in assent" also baseless.[/quote]No, actually, that was based on the 20 or so votes. And apparently criticism isn't much appreciated, since it just gets voted to obscurity so no one has to think about it. That's exactly what they do at those fundy sites. How disheartening to think that's what we've come to as a skeptical community. Well, thank [i]you[/i] for responding, in any case. And BJ. Some hope yet, perhaps; even if you don't agree ;) Though, even taken as sarcasm, I think those comments were out of line and unhelpful. - God's delusion Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:12:24 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7958 [quote]written by stacyhead, July 03, 2009 I'm impressed with the stereotypical southern slang here! If Hee Haw were still on, you could audition for the cast, and maybe they would make you a big star someday.[/quote] Well.. thank you kindly maaaamm. Hee Haw was my religion. ;) - Willy K Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:03:46 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7952 Kuroyume said : "These types of studies should be ignored out of hand. Much like the 'coffee is good for you' vs. 'coffee is bad for you' studies." Exactly. I figure those studies involve first, a study that shows some link between coffee and a health issue. So people reduce their coffee consumption. Then Juan Valdez buys a congresscritter with oversight of the FDA or some other agency, and the next thing you know "Government studies show a link between drinking 5-6 pots of coffee a day and a sense of well-being..." And it goes back and forth like that. Why should a "study" showing religious people, and only members of two of the Big Three, christian and jewish, (contrary to what southern baptists believe, catholics ARE christian)at that!) to be healthier than the poor, unsaved masses be any different? Follow the Money. It'll lead to some deep-pocketed evangelical group, like "Focus on your Bedroom" or the like. - Brookston John Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:01:24 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7946 The third eye concept, the pineal gland, the seat of the soul, Descartes. More importantly Third Eye Blind, great band! - stacyhead Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:49:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7945 If you say it enough times and wish hard enough, it'll happen! It saved Dorothy and Tinkerbell, didn't it? - tctheunbeliever Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:39:32 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7943 There is one thing you often see with the religious that you often don't with the non-religious that I think is likely to have a benefit: community. People who are regular church goers have a big community that help each other out in varous ways. That seems to be something that would have positive health benefits. There's very good research that shows social isolation has negative health effects. That is clearly not a good enough reason to join a religion. However it seems to me that what skeptics are doing in getting together more is a good idea. In that case I wonder if I could justify TAM as being for my health? Probably not. - Noadi Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:42:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7941 These types of studies should be ignored out of hand. Much like the 'coffee is good for you' vs. 'coffee is bad for you' studies. For every positive study one can do a million negative studies for which a million-million positive studies can be done for which... (ya get it). For instance, just to shank these types of studies, did they also consider socio-cultural conditions, local or national traditions, geographic region, genetic dispositions, diet, education, and probably a hundred thousand other variables? Doubtful. Doing a study doesn't make the study valid just as making a hypothesis and testing experiment validate it to a theory (see Cold Fusion). Any good experiment-hypothesis or study needs to be open to dissection and replication by other people. That is why the prayer-for-health study was so vehemently attacked. The design of this study was seriously flawed and biased - and they were caught out, fortunately. A better study might allow each participant to specify their exact religious affiliation. Either way, this is just an attempt at justifying one's religious convictions more than seeking facts. - Kuroyume Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:05:52 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7940 [quote]But golly gee-willikers granpa... whatever happened to those believers who's outcome with serious heart problems were not helped one iota by prayers from their fellow believers? You 'member that study granpa? The one where a religious group was all enthusiastic about in the beginning of the study but when it turned out there's no benefit to prayers they copped an attitude like "prayers work we say, the study is wrong!"[/quote] I'm impressed with the stereotypical southern slang here! If Hee Haw were still on, you could audition for the cast, and maybe they would make you a big star someday. 8) - stacyhead Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:33:40 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7939 I have to agree with ziztur, God's delusion. Sarcasm, hyperbole, and taking the exaggerated definiton of catholic and muslim as defined in their respective holy books (very few actually follow their holy books to the letter, but if they did...) BJ - BillyJoe Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:33:31 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7936 I took those comments to be clear sarcasm, similar to the other obviously sarcastic remarks I saw. Lack of response does not mean we are accepting of bias and stereotype. Assuming that our silence means we are "nodding happily in assent" also baseless. - ziztur Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:16:50 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7935 Written by Michael K Gray: [quote]Hold it right there, Dick Tracy! Just how the 'hell' are they measuring so-called mental health? It must exclude excruciating and life-long guilt. Just ask any Catholic. It must exclude any notion of self-worth. Just ask either a Christian or Muslim female. It must exclude any conceit to independent thought. Just ask ANY theist of any stripe. [/quote]What a fantastic display of bias and stereotype. And everyone happily nods in assent. Show me the evidence. Show me the research that backs up the claim that Catholics suffer excruciating lifelong guilt, or even that they suffer guilt significantly moreso than the average population. Show me the research that Christian and Muslim women have, in general, less self-worth than the average woman; let alone no notion of it at all. Show me the evidence that theists are unable to think independently. What utter, baseless, tripe. Unbefitting of a skeptic, or any decent human being for that matter. I guess critical thinking only applies to other people's views. - God's delusion Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:09:29 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7934 [quote]I always wondered what Pascal planned on telling his god about the sincerity of his faith.[/quote]Or how stupid he would have felt when he realised he could have slept in all those Sunday mornings or gone for a run through the mountains. - BillyJoe Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:06:56 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7931 Of course, some religious people will use these types of studies to try to get you into church whether you believe or not. They'll just say it's just another good reason to worship. It's kind of like Pascal's Wager--bet on Heaven because being wrong has no consequences. I always wondered what Pascal planned on telling his god about the sincerity of his faith. - tctheunbeliever Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:14:34 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/622-hows-your-health-skeptics.html#comment-7928 But golly gee-willikers granpa... whatever happened to those believers who's outcome with serious heart problems were not helped one iota by prayers from their fellow believers? You 'member that study granpa? The one where a religious group was all enthusiastic about in the beginning of the study but when it turned out there's no benefit to prayers they copped an attitude like "prayers work we say, the study is wrong!" Now what was that logical fallacy y'all told me about gramps? The one were you only look for evidence that confirms your belief? :P - Willy K Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:37:52 +0100