Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer2
Now is that because a person filters the incoming information and puts a spin on the truth? Just wondering if you could expand a bit.
|
More like you cannot trust your senses or memory before you even get to your biases. The narrative of consciousness is an illusion created by your mind filling in details and gaps, which is further degraded on recollection; then we generalize from the particular after applying some confirmation bias, and form our theory of self-reality from it. Needless to say, this doesn't promote much in the way of accurate reflection of the world.
I personally think that the only thing grounding most minds in an approximation of reality is that humans are selected by evolution to understand it for survival's sake, and that there is a normalizing feedback effect from other approximating minds around us (although this feedback sometimes instead causes worse disconnects from reality when a bad idea becomes consensus).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuluking
Do we need to measure things scientifically in order to prove efficacy? No.
|
How do you measure things non-scientifically? You do understand that any kind of process by which you can make a meaningful measurement is, by definition, scientific?
There is a common misconception that there are curative effects that can't be measured or detected by science. This is utterly and completely wrong. Science might not be able to *explain* an effect, but if something *has* an effect, then statistical methods - science - can detect that effect.
It's just counting and comparing counts, really - how do you argue that counting numbers can somehow be wrong? Does 2 switch places with 4 when you're not looking?