h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>> "It doesn't matter if the dog is a huge, hairy St Bernard or a white, cuddly Highland Terrier; he can tell the difference between the two and still come to the conclusion that both are dogs, even though they look totally different and may not look like pictures he has seen. He has the inherent ability to recognise something for what it is, and at the same time distinguish between different branches of the same thing."

I strongly doubt this, but I'm unwilling to keep a statistically significant group of toddlers away from dogs for a long enough period to test this. And I can't for my bare life see how you'd teach them the word 'dog' without showing them some. There are plenty of dogs that look enough like cats to confuse me even today, but then maybe it's because my intuition is off.
However, I think it much more likely that children learn the basic characteristcs of dogs, the ways they differ from similar looking animals and apply the significant pattern recognition power of the brain to figure out whether a new example is a dog or a cat.

Agreed . Perhaps a study of language growth in children might provide a balance .
The argument by analogy-- dogs---> crystals is decidedly weak

I would imagine the anology would have been similar whether the word for dogs, cats, birds any type of living being had been used. A toddler can recognise what is alive and what is dead, by instinct, without having to be told.
I was referring to the instinctive nature of human beings. Some of us are more in tune with nature than others I suppose.

'Dog' as such, is just a word.

CKS

A toddler can recognise what is _moving_ and what is _still_ without being told. I doubt there is some instinct in us that will separate something moving and dead (like a robot dog) from something moving and alive (like a real dog), and neither do I think there is some instinct that will separate something still and alive from something still and dead (a real and a plastic plant for instance).
A child's recognition of dogs is, I believe, due to _learning_ the pattern of dogs, not due to instinct. Teach the child the word for dog, and it will use it for all four legged furred creatures. Tech it the word for cat and it will try to separate the two, but will misslabel all other four legged furred creatures, and be confused by the dogs that looks like cats. Eventually this pattern recognition will allow the child to place a creature of unknown appearance in one of the boxes, or if it doesn't fit, ask someone for the correct label.

We're not born with the word dog and we're not born with a 'concept' of dog.

well the 'nature' nurture' argument could go on ad infinitum. You're a sceptic and I'm not. I only posted up what I believe. If you don't want to believe it you are welcome not to believe it.



CKS

I don't think this is nature/nuture at all. Are you sure toddlers can tell dead from living?

This has really gone off the point, but in answer to your question I would think they can. Seeing as I'm not a toddler, I can't say for sure.

It's still on the point "do humans instinctively recognise things, or learn them".
An argument for 'learning' here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/FFM103922?thread=224411&skip=0&show=20#p2634886

I would argue that toddlers cannot tell dead from living. Toddlers do all sorts of "gross" things like playing with dead animals and feces, the same way they would treat a living pet or a favorite toy. When an "adult" sees them doing this they usually teach them not too, by punishment etc.

I have no issue with the content, just its presentation, the main body of this entry is pure opinion, no problem with people having and or sharing opinions. The problem arises only when people misrepresent opinion as facts.
People use this site, and the guide as a whole as a source of referance, by presenting opinion as though it is fact you are abusing the trust these people put in you.
I know we cannot be perfect or even all that close, but if something is not a generaly accepted fact we should be clear on what it is, opinion, accepted theory, divine inspiration, whatever the source may be.

Math

Agree with Math.
The whole idea of crystals affecting health matters is very suss to me especially the healing qualities attributed to them in this entry
Where is the objective evidence ?
Where did this all come from ?
No doubt there are those who feel better wearing them ( as decoration probably ) and there are crystals one can grind up and take as a mineral supplement , but I get a picture here that makes me wonder about the intellect of those who suspend crystals over various organs etc.

I disagree. The nature of Western Medicine is based on the elimination of symptoms. The combined presence of symptoms equals a given condition or disease. The cure is in exposing the body to an element which will successfully eliminate the symptom or removing the damaged tissue surgically. The apparent value of faith based energy or healing methods when compared to the use of cutting and killing in small dosages seems as rational to me as any other method. I have personal experience with regard to both surgery and hospitalization for life threatening disease and all the doctors I have encountered seems to believe strongly that the personal belief of the patient has a greater weight in successful treatment than any procedure they can perform beyond stabilization. So whether or not the crystal itself can heal is just as important as the belief possessed bythe individual being healed.
Ssubnel

Why do you think that

"the apparent value of faith based energy or healing methods when compared to the use of cutting and killing in small dosages seems as rational"

??

A priori, I agree with you. But we can make a lot of fallacious assumptions, a priori. By the same logic, I can say that I should be able to breather underwater. There's no reason why I can't - water is a fluid, just like air. except that based on experience, I know that I can't.

Do you have any actual studies, with statistical numbers, that show that the crystals are effective? Because that is what western medicine is based on - what has been shown to work, time and again, repeatedly, with measurable results.

I have heard the same thing about the patients attitude being critically important. But I don't know if this has ever been systematically studied. And in this regard, the crystal's purpose would be to affect the patients attitude, and nothing more.

Western medicine, as you described, is based on repeating a perscribed set of actions with a calclated level of success. The statistical rational you credit the medical industry is more sparse than you might imagine. I recommend you look into how clinical trials are run for drug approval before endorsing them.
Drug companies spend several times their research budgets in advertising and applying politcal pressure to secure marketshare for drugs they produce. Often we find western medicine inventing syndromes to market pharmacological cures (do you have trouble speaking in public, are your children active...too active). To hold up western medicine and its methodology of eliminate the symptom or eliminate the tissue that contains the symptom as a paragon for the marvels of medicine is rather myopic.
I have no documented research as to how well crystals perform as a method as healing wounds, but would not be surprised to find some substance to their claims. After all western medicine as recently as 1997 adopted acupuncture as a legitimate treatment for pain management. Who would imagine that, an HMO will send you for acupuncture and pay for it? While we're on the topic of pain management, what about chiropractics. Studies have shown the methodology to, at best, have no effect. Yet this is a commonly accepted medical practice in western medicine.
I could also point how ineffective we have been at fighting cancer, parkinsons, alzheimers, AIDS, ad nauseum. Sure there are limited successes, and some diseases are slowed by drug therapies. But we are just beginning to understand how we are designed and how much our environment impacts our physical being. Maybe a few years from now an HMO wll be paying to have a healer lay crystals on your body. You never know.

Nobody is decrying the efficacy of mental attitudes .

But please on the other hand do not even suggest that the corrupt attitudes of big drug corporations ( and we all know about that ! ) is a justification for not cutting out a cancer or not taking an anti-biotic ,relying instead on some crystal waving .

I agree that western medicine isn't perfect, and of course the drug industry is going to do what makes them money, regardless of ethical & moral issues (ie whatever they can get away with, even if this includes inventing ailments).

But you admit that western medicine itself is flexible enough itself to adopt any method that works, regardless of whether or not it is understood - the examples you supply is accupunture and chiropractics.

These 2 examples both demonstrate western medicines openness to new ideas. Now, if there was any affect, psychological or otherwise from crystals, why wouldn't western medicine adopt the use of them as well? We've already accepted the fact that western med will use acupuncture, which it can't explain. Why not crystals? Maybe because they don't work?

Also, we accept that fact that drug companies are unethical beasts just out to turn a quick buck. If they could make money off of crystals, or if anyone could on a large scale, don't you think they would have?

BTW - I know for a fact they are making progress on alzheimers, I don't know about the others.

I have looked for case studies regarding the healing powers of crystals and come up empty. So short of a grant from NIMH and an M.D. I guess I am coming up empty here. Would be nice if it did work though, would definitely save some money in the healthcare industry. Maybe the U.S. could use the savings to finally join the rest of the civilized world and nationalize health care. Till then, Ill just keep looking for data.

good call - it would be nice to live in a society where everyone agrees on the common "courtesy" of providing health care to everyone, regardless of income. Let me know if you find anything out...you know what else would be interesting? I wonder if the drug companies have investigated crystals, or if they've even discussed it.

Doesn't the artical state something about different practicioners using different crystals for the same purpose ? doesn't that kinda preclude the crystals themselves from being the source of the effect, and as I'm not going to try and beleive in faith healing, the effects must then (to my limited mind and imagination) have come from the psycological impact of believing in the treatment, or the blind luck of getting better that happens to some cases regardless treatment.

I also note that my earlier statement, although not clear was intended to be regarding the original topic of the babies intuitivly recognising dogs rather than the artical as a whole which does include the belief token towards the effects of crystals.

Math

Hello, Math. I could just turn 90° to my right and tell you this personally but that would involve too great an effort; besides, it would interrupt the music.
My point is: my niece, when she was little(r), used to point to every four-legged animal she saw, be it a dog, cat, gerbil or horse, and yell "doggie!".