Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 315 posts

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#141

Post by PaulAJ »

barry-cotter wrote: post #133
andrepd wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The figure of the family doctor that takes his time and actually shows you attention has vanished. The average experience of a hospital visit is that of being treated like a number. This doesn't have to be so (indeed in many places it isn't yet). This is a consequence of a strained public health system which is simply running over capacity. Maybe if we stopped pumping money into banks and wealthy people's pockets we…

The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country, which is hardly surprising given that it’s the richest country. Whatever criticisms one might make of the US healthcare system not enough money is far down the list.

The US also spends more as a proportion of GDP than anywhere else, by a considerable margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_hea...

Of course its not clear how much of this expenditure goes to various middlemen and how much actually gets spent on the patients. Even phrasing the question in a meaningful way is non-trivial, never mind getting a clear answer.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#142

Post by skissane »

barry-cotter wrote: post #133
andrepd wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The figure of the family doctor that takes his time and actually shows you attention has vanished. The average experience of a hospital visit is that of being treated like a number. This doesn't have to be so (indeed in many places it isn't yet). This is a consequence of a strained public health system which is simply running over capacity. Maybe if we stopped pumping money into banks and wealthy people's pockets we…

The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country, which is hardly surprising given that it’s the richest country. Whatever criticisms one might make of the US healthcare system not enough money is far down the list.

> The US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country, which is hardly surprising given that it’s the richest country.

Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland, Brunei, Norway, UAE, Kuwait and Switzerland all have more GDP per capita (PPP) than the US yet spend less per capita on healthcare (PPP). So, the US coming first in health expenditure per capita is not simply due to coming first in wealth. (The US does come first in nominal GDP, but it doesn't make much sense to compare an overall figure like that with a per capita one.)

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#143

Post by janpot »

normalnorm wrote: post #97
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #23

> The ailments that Reiki seems to treat most effectively are those that orthodox medicine struggles to manage: pain, anxiety, chronic disease, and the fear or discomfort of facing not only the suffering of illness but also the suffering of treatment. This is key. Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit su…

> Modern medicine, with the way hospitals and health insurance are run, do not and cannot address, for economic reasons, a pretty important aspect, albeit subjective, which is well-being. The "economic reasons" are just the preferences of the rich & powerful. Resources could be allocated in other ways. It is just that those that call the shots are not interested. In the US, they also managed to convince a large part…

"economic reasons", I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets triggered by a formulation like that.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#144

Post by hnhg »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #138
411111111111111 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None was provided, so we will have to dismiss it until some proof is provided. Nobody is dismissing proof here. They're only dismissive of the extraordinary claims that an immeasurable energy somehow inherent to some things has any effect beyond essentially the placebo effect. After all, there hasn't been any evidence which showed differently. If you have some stud…

No, you wouldn't be ecstatic at all. Even if hard evidence existed for anomalous interpretations of reality - which it does, in forgotten corners of academia [1] - you'd be utterly dismissive of it. You'd spend the first part of your answer debunking it with some untested pseudo-explanations, and the rest of your answer complaining that it hadn't been replicated. And you wouldn't even notice the evidence linked to in…

Please don't fall into ad hominem attacks. I don't think it helps the conversation here.

I took a look at the study linked and I could see some problems in experiment design. There are so many confounding factors that aren't controlled for.

[edit: An experiment like this would have to be pretty big in scope and try to randomise for control groups accordingly. I personally would like to see that to see what's genuinely resulting in these effects, no matter what it is. You might not believe that though, which is your own bias.]

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#145

Post by dmos62 »

hnhg wrote: post #140
dmos62 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It merits skepticism. But, is it a lack of the scientific method that's motivating the backlash? Or, is it that the claim falls within an unpopular marginality? The obvious rebut is that it's unpopular, because it lacks scientific method. In other words, mainstream is mainstream due to merit and can be used as source of truth. If anyone takes this view, I hope they're very conscious of it, because in my opinion this…

You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.

You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#146

Post by hnhg »

dmos62 wrote: post #145
hnhg wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be ignoring this: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' If it helps consider it from a Bayesian pov - just give us some decent evidence and it will start to shift our prior belief, which is so far based on overwhelming evidence that this is quackery.

You missed that I'm not interested in Reiki or whether it works. I'm interested in how we treat mainstream and marginality, and how we sometimes hide behind science to protect our metaphysical beliefs.

Yeah, I did. In that case, I agree.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#147

Post by balfirevic »

nprateem wrote: post #122

I've been attuned to level 2 reiki. I've also received it a few times both in person and from a distance. And stone me, but I felt stuff every time. The first time I had it from a master on my crown it was like something pouring down through my body. It felt electrical and great. I've no idea how the distance stuff works, although I've been told how to do it. Well, I've been given explanations about the 'all-is-one,…

If you can reliably distinguish whether the distant practitioner is doing anything to you or not, you should be able to get yourself a million dollars [0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#148

Post by nprateem »

seer wrote: post #30
crispinb wrote: post #22

Almost more interesting than Reiki itself is the reflexive responses, bifurcating essentially into: 1. it's all mumbo jumbo 2. there's more in heaven and earth, my son Note that neither group is particularly interested in the empirical evidence, though group 1 will tend to take a louder cherry-picking feint at it. An empiricist mindset is really hard for humans to inhabit. We (scientistic hard-heads included) judge p…

Great comment and I apologize in advance for going off topic. We all have our mental models and it takes effort to re-evaluate and change them. And as the saying goes - there are no right models, only useful ones in some situations. Some are useful in more situations than others. Take “flat earth” model of the world. It’s not right, but it’s precise enough for the purposes of living in a village. Nothing wrong with t…

> but the spirituality that comes with it. Very easily debunked by modern fact based science

How does modern science debunk spirituality? Have you got some conclusive proof from somewhere that consciousness is only an emergent property of matter? How about that all the mystical experiences reported throughout the millenia (some with remarkable similarity) were just cross-cultural illusions (that also crossed vast time periods)?

It was traditionally acknowledged that there were limitations to the scientific method, and that spirituality/consciousness lay beyond it. I'd be interested in some proof that all this stuff doesn't exist (just as I'm equally searching for personal experience that suggests the opposite).

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#149

Post by chrisdone »

mmhsieh wrote: post #26

Human touch does trigger positive neurochemical cascades. We might understand how all this works much better in the future, perhaps we big improvements in in vivo imaging of biological processes. Maybe some future version of CARS microscopy that does not fry the cell; better theory on multi-scale processes in human biology; and much better fMRI than what we have now.

Reiki does not involve touch.

Re: Reiki can’t possibly work, so why does it?

#150

Post by nprateem »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #121
raverbashing wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think researchers get too hung up on the a) "folclorical explanations" and b) specific measurable attributes (depression scales, anxiety scales, etc) I have no doubt that the Reiki or Acupunture traditional explanations make no scientific sense. But I'm also long on the idea that sticking needles at a shallow depth might have a certain analgesic effect (also see: tattoos). Yeah it seems you can't do a "fake acupunt…

>Yeah it seems you can't do a "fake acupunture" study, but that's not its fault. Actually you can. More specifically, you can place needles randomly/arbitrarily rather than looking at "energy lines" or "chi" or whatever utter bollocks proponents of acupuncture spout. Turns out, it performs at the same level as placebo. Just like "real" acupuncture.

> "energy lines" or "chi" or whatever utter bollocks proponents of acupuncture spout.

I do love an open mind. Here's a simple and fun way to perhaps convince yourself that this 'utter bollocks' has something to it. Learn tantric sex. Seriously. It's insightful when you realise you can use your mind to control your sexual energy and last far longer than when you don't 'move your chi along energy lines'.

Post reply on HN