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

BTW: remember the entry on Feng Shui? I recommended that, remember. It depends how it's written.

Yet neither of them have been proven in the scientific world, so how can you disagree with others that have not been proven either?

Plenty of things have not been proven. Lots of things have been disproven. In fact, it's impossible to prove anything true. It just hasn't been proven false yet. However, I may have no evidence as to whether Santa Claus does not exist but seeing as there's no rational basis for whether he does I am not going to go out looking for it.

The feng shui entry talked about belief and the practice that has grown up around it. It didn't make any claims that were not substantiable. It was a well-written account of the practice.

And before anybody else starts accusing me of bullying, being sanctimonious etc., I'd like to respond people that this was a conversation intially between me and Gnomon before everybody else invited themselves around here for a shindig. I know expectations of privacy here are unreasonable, but I'm entitled to stand up for what I believe in on my own PS. And if you don't like that, you can leave in the full knowledge that I will *not* be pursuing you around the site trying to pick a fight.

There's a difference, VV. Scientists don't know how acupuncture works, but they do know that it does work in some cases. Crystal therapy, or whatever it is called, definitely does not work. This can be proved.

We should certainly have an entry on Crystal Therapy, since many people pay a lot of money for it, but such an entry should certainly mention the fact that the therapy is a con.

thank you for the resumay

I've been on h2 for a few years now, threatened to leave 3 or 4 times but allways been talked into staying!

Now i'll never partisipate in anything to do with writing guides, allways wanted to write something, but after seeing so many of these squables like this one here, thought better of it! Now a difference between people is inevitable and those who like and want just the plain facts about things should (and this is just an personal opinion) should take a long look at themselves as what brought them to this place, it is a book, the person who wrote it, had the idea whist laying drunk in a field in Innbruk, that after a while, thought about making this site possibe...... a coumminity of people posting about their daily lives.

Its seems to me that this place is again in a state of flux, as to knowing which way it will go, only the BBC will know and being a large corprate (which we pay the funding off) can't be $££^$ to tell us of course!

RJR (feeling ever so slightly manic today)

"Giving up and then complaining about the standards of the Guide is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nevertheless, it's your choice. "

Here's an open question to you, Jimster. After all this, after I have nailed my obstinately rationalist values to the mast, would you really want me back in the fold? I mean, I brought a lot to the EG. I think it's fair to say I was a good Scout and an even better writer. But I can't help thinking that even if I was welcomed back with open arms, it would now be primarily an exercise in containment above all else. Having me inside the tent pissing out might be viewed by some as preferable to me being outside, pissing in.

ooOOOoo before i forget


Nothing is impossible, just highly improble


RJR

Acupuncture helped my mum's migraines a lot. Or should I say, appeared to help.

But that's exactly my point FM.

Accupuncture has not been proven in the eyes of science, yet it appears to help many, many people world wide (and I suffer migraines so I'm glad your mum seems to have them under control now).

As with the crystal thingy...many people say they work, yet science has yet to prove or disprove the theory that they do work, the same iwth accupuncture.

How can you differentiate between the two of them?

Double blind trials.

Even placebo's will work, if the patient believes in them.

Anyway, I really should get on with some work now. Thank you all for dropping in for lunch. We really must do this again sometime....

Not.

*washes the dishes and wipes up the crumbs*

Bye.

*sound of door slamming and lots of bolts being drawn*

Now where's that bloody Bushmills?

*picks up Rob the Carpet and rattles the door*


errrmmm... 'scuse me!.. Can you let me out, please?

VV, I answered that question, about acupuncture vs crystals, earlier. Did you not read my reply?

Acupuncture has been proved by science. They don't know how it works, but they know it works. It is not just a placebo.

It's not true to say that crystals have been neither proved nor disproved by science. In fact, they have been disproved.

We have to be very careful in writing the Guide to distinguish between:

a) things which are almost definitely true, which includes 99% of things
b) things which might or might not be true and which some people believe
c) things which are not true, but some people believe anyway

>>Oh, just standing up for some outdated concepts, such as truth and accyracy, that's all.<<

Just a moment - either you have an emotive discussion and sling sarcasm, cheap jibes and attempt to score points

(which is how I *perceive this discussion is going. I may be wrong, I may not be; I make no judgements (subjective viewpoint and therefore not applicable)

OR

The matter is discussed dispassionately, with respect and courtesy to and from all parties and everyone accepts that thru debate the matter can either be brought to a logical and workable conclusion.

(Co-incidentally my preference, but objectively speaking, a logical conclusion)

I use that particular anolgogy because it may be one FM could relate to - he states catorgorically that proof is needed before anything can be believed.

He states he is defending an idea which is "wrong"

(My apologies in advance if I have misread your intention FM)

Firstly, can you prove *any idea is wrong without exploring it so fully and so minutely that the idea is never acted upon?

Secondly, an idea is just that - an idea. It cannot be defined, analysed and shredded to component pieces. It ceases to be relevent as soon as a *newer, or modified idea of the same subject is expressed.

Does the proof have to be satisfying to one individual or to the majority?




For the sake of clarity, and in order to expand our minds and improve our writing skills - both collectively and subjectively, would it not be in all our best interests to agree to leave emotions and egoes at the door - to use a metaphor, and either agree to agree or disagree dispassionately.



Your arguments would carry an awful lot more weight FM if you adhered to your own self made criteria by expressing your own thoughts (by honing up your thought processes and your writing skills) less emotively and more coherantly. By your own rules you cannot achieve *what you appear to want by the method of expression you are currently utilising.

You don't have to label yourself a Bully, a Bear, a Scientist, a Faith Healer... or a Gender. At this moment in time, your label is a totally irrelevent idea.

Respect for everyone, on the other hand, is totally relevent.

Do you want me to prove that, or is it an idea we can all agree upon without having to analyse it further?

I don't think we're going to arrive at a consensus on what is truth here. We'll have to discuss each case individually, I think, as we all have slightly (or wildly) different places we draw the line between knowledge and pseudo-knowledge.