[Jewelry making - Article 00623] - Re: [Orchid] Crystal Therapy

[Andrew Werby]

========[ Invite a Friend - http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm  ]========


>                 Of course some people don't feel anything from
>     crystals. Some people can't even smell when a cat lives in a house.
>      Some people are capable of discerning the differences between rare
>     vintage red wines, and others can't tell if it's lite beer or
>     regular. I am wondering what varying levels of the physical senses
>     of smell and taste have to do with detecting a non-physical and
>     unverifiable energy. You are making an interesting comparison. 

>         I'll concede that modern science knows more about the
>     receptors for smell and taste, as well as vision, hearing, and many
>     forms of touch, than it does about other less understood forms of
>     human perception.  Science has not yet identified physical cellular
>     receptors for the energy people feel off of crystals.  It does not
>     mean that they don't exist. 

    It wouldn't be necessary to identify the receptors in order to prove
    such an effect to be real. All that would be needed would be a
    double-blinded and repeatable experiment like the one originally
    proposed, where a sensitive individual would reliably distinguish the
    presence of the supposedly energetic crystals without being able to
    physically perceive them. If you think this is possible, round up
    some of these people and do the experiment - if it showed a
    statistically significant effect, I'm sure the scientific community
    would be interested.] 

>         Truly, historically, only recently are we able to say that
>     these senses (of smell and taste) even come close to being both
>     physical (assuming that you are meaning that there is physical
>     causation -- actual physical bombardment of particles, not remote
>     detection; AND not that the sense is "felt" physically -- since
>     those who are able to "feel" crystal energy definitely "feel" it
>     physically) and verifiable (assuming that you are meaning
>     detectable by some man-made machinery; not in the way something is
>     "verified" by numerous credible experiencial witnesses -- like in a
>     court of law...). 

>         In fact, if you understood a little more about science, you
>     might want to watch how you throw around the terms "non-physical"
>     and "unverifiable energy", as if they negated possibility of
>     existance. 

    A basic principle of science is that claims of certain effects are
    not considered to be scientifically valid  if their proponent is
    unable to verify them experimentally, in a way that can be repeated.
    It is not considered necessary to negate the posibility of their
    existence.] 

>       Take "non-physical" for example -- that would mean that the
>     thing in question would not exhibit (as per definition) "having
>     substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses".  That
>     would negate huge amounts of the electromagnetic spectrum in wave
>     form that can only be detected and de-scrambled by man-made
>     devices, a small example being wave forms detected and de-scrambled
>     by radio and television.  Do you "feel" these wave forms in the
>     air?  They are all around you. 

    While these wave-forms exist, they were not accepted by science
    until a practical and repeatable demonstration was possible. Are you
    proposing a different standard? Are we to believe in everything
    anybody says until it can be conclusively proved not to exist? A
    negative is notoriously difficult to prove; usually the burden of
    proof  is on the person proposing a solution to a problem, whether
    positing an invisible wave or a theory of how something works.] 

>         And what about "unverifiable energy"?  This one is a little
>     more tricky, because I love science, and the ability to recreate
>     results in controlled experiments is a tenet of scientific method. 
>     I just have to point to the past, and remind you that nothing is
>     scientifically known until it is proven and scrutenized; and
>     historically all energies were unverifiable until someone created
>     a device to detect them.  Otherwise and until then, those energies
>     were unverifiable except by antectdotal evidence. 

    I don't think many scientists would agree that it's possible to
    verify something by anecdotal evidence. In the past, many theories
    have been discarded because they proved unverifiable, and this, as
    well as the discovery of substances, natural laws, and forces that
    can be substantiated, moves our understanding forward. Few people
    believe in phlogiston any more, because we've come up with better
    explanations for why things burn, and we tend to let scientists
    explain things like this to us. On the other hand, many people
    continue to believe in astrology, although it is only vouched for by
    anecdotal evidence and has not been confirmed to be predictive by
    experimentation. This is because the sphere it inhabits is more
    personal, akin to religious belief, a realm many people refuse to
    allow science to control in their lives.] 

>         "Life energy" would have to be one of the current
>     "unverifiable energies" that science struggles to comprehend. 
>     Science can only verify the symptoms (like in the definition: "1
>     The force of will which strives to coalesce a dynamic organism from
>     inanimate matter. 2 A force which demonstrates a purposeful
>     intentionality to feed, process matter into energy, grow, and
>     reproduce.").  What is this force that can "coalesce a dynamic
>     organism from inanimate matter"? Science doesn't know yet -- do
>     you?  And can you verify it by anything other than antectdotal
>     evidence? 

    If you're talking about being able to tell if someone or something
    is alive or dead, then yes, I believe there are instruments that can
    distinguish the two states. While doubtless we have more to learn
    about the energy fields of living organisms, I don't think you can
    call their presence "unverifiable" in a scientific sense.] 

>         I compared the abilities to smell and taste to the ability to
>     perceive energy off of a crystal or crystals because all require
>     some kind of human perception, and all also present a continuum of
>     responses.  Most people can sort of understand the ability to
>     smell or to taste, and most people have experienced the continuum
>     of responses to different smells or tastes in different people
>     ("That stinks!" "I don't smell anything." -- "That food is too
>     spicey." "I can hardly taste it." -- "I can feel the energy off
>     that crystal." "I don't feel anything.")  This doesn't prove or
>     disprove the validity of personal claims, it just indicates that
>     variances exist even in accepted perceptions. 

    While individual differences certainly exist in perceptive
    abilities, it is eminently possible to prove beyond a reasonable
    doubt that a smell or taste exists. Unanimity of perception isn't
    necessary for an effect to be accepted as real, even by those who
    don't perceive it directly. Just find a number of people who do have
    the ability to, for example, smell a skunk, bring them into a
    skunk-sprayed room and a room that hasn't been affected that way,
    and show they can reliably and repeatedly tell the difference. Even
    the anosmic among us would agree the effect is real.] 

>         I personally believe that what I feel off of a crystal is
>     either its torsion field (I'm pretty sure you need to learn more
>     about physics before I want to even try to explain this one to
>     you), or that I feel a reflection and amplification of my own
>     energy field (which I would assume that you don't believe exists). 

>         It would definitely be fun to do a clinical double-blind test
>     on the ability to "feel" the energy associated with any particular
>     crystal or crystals, but that is hardly what you suggest. 

    I think that was exactly what was suggested by the original poster
    in this thread. Are you confident of your ability to detect these
    "torsion fields" (or whatever they are) reliably and repeatedly? If
    so, it would be wonderful if you could demonstrate this for the
    scientific community.] 

>         The person and experiment you cite as an example for the
>     "test" you would like to conduct was a nine year old girl creating
>     an "experiment" for her fourth grade science fair, whose parents
>     both have a vested interest in her "proving" the fallacy of
>     Theraputic Touch.  (Both parents are quite active in
>     Anti-Theraputic Touch organizations.  I didn't even know that there
>     *were* Anti-Theraputic Touch organizations -- as if voluntary
>     participation in Theraputic Touch were somehow harmful to the
>     participants and that they needed to be protected from it?) 

    I must have missed that part, but pseudo-therapies can be harmful,
    if only because they are often substituted for treatements that
    actually work. If you were asked "Will wearing this stone cure my
    cancer?" would you really answer in the affirmative?] 

>         I do not ask that you believe that others can "feel" crystals,
>     you are entitled to believe what you wish.  I just ask that you
>     please learn what real science is, and distinguish it from what it
>     is not. 

    Ah, we're on the same page here...] 

>         My experience in these experiments has shown that the 'crystal
>     energy sensitive' are much better at formulating excuses, for what
>     may be interfering with their ability to detect the energy
>     accurately, than they are at actually detecting any energy or the
>     presence of any crystal (healing stone) in the area. 

    I would love to read your clinical trials.  Can you please post a
    link, or tell me how to obtain your notes?  I only ask because you
    have posted a link to what you consider a "real" experiment, only to
    find that it was done by a fourth-grader. 

--Terri

    [Here's another one, since you bring it up:
    http://www.phact.org/e/tt/test1.htm . But I don't think that just
    because an experimenter is young, it invalidates the results of her
    experiment. If it is well-conducted, novel and repeatable, and the
    results hold up, then it's good science in my book.] 

Andrew Werby


____________________________________________________________________
T h e   O r c h i d   L i s t
Open Electronic Forum for Jewelry Manufacturing Methods and Procedures
____________________________________________________________________
Orchid FAQ:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/faq.htm
Orchid Archives:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/archive
Orchid Galleries:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/orchid/gallery.htm
Invite a Friend:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/invite.htm
____________________________________________________________________
Tips From The Jeweler's Bench - Article Archive
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/borisat/tip_sear.htm
The Jeweler's Selected Bibliography List
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/jewelry-books
Buy Orchid Jewelry:
~ http://www.ganoksin.com/shop
____________________________________________________________________
-Unsubscribe:
-Email: orchid-request AT ganoksin.com Body=unsubscribe subject=blank
____________________________________________________________________