Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson
I don't doubt the veracity of the stories reported here, at least no more so than I would for any other similar story. The problem is in accepting these stories as evidence of harm due to belief in paranormal stuff. They are the same quality of evidence as verifiable stories of someone healed by John of God or cured by a homeopathic medicine.

Ashles
They are absolutely not. But this has been explained to you in this thread Beth and you are choosing to ignore the difference. You are actually clearly obviously playing stupid.
'Other causes'? You really are clutching at straws now.

Why must you continually insult people who do not agree with you? Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is the stupid one?

 

[Harlequin]

Why does it bother you that I question the thread? Why not simply respond (or not) to my comments rather than making accusations about my beliefs and motivations?

It seems like the issue is really about what kind of anecdote you present as evidence. Not all anecdotes are created equal.
Something that happened to a FOAF is not really valid. Something presented in a respectable journal is also an anecdote, but it is qualitatively quite different.

So the reason that people don't accept anecdotes in some of the other threads probably has more to do with what the supporting documentation is for the anecdote. If there's none at all, it is fairly worthless and nobody here is likely to want to hear about it. If there is documentation, the anecdote is considered to be evidence of some interest.

As an example, if you claim to have visited a "true" medium, you will be asked to supply a transcript. If there is none, it is not useful as evidence. If the transcript apparently exists but is not provided, it fits into the same category!

In general, an anecdote only provides evidence as good as the documentation that supports it.

 

[drkitten]

1. The child murdered by the person administering 'rebirthing' therapy. First of all, I'm not sure why this example is in there at all. It doesn't involve any sort of paranormal belief.

That harm occurred is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' is not so clear. I don't consider a person who dies on the operating table because the surgeon was drunk or otherwise incompetent to be an indictment of the surgical procedure that was attempted. Likewise, I don't consider this example to be an indictment of the 'belief' of the perpetrator of the crime.

I think there are a couple of aspects here that your medical analogy does not clearly deal with. The big one is the benefit/risk tradeoff.

"Need" is indeed a controversial issue, but let's not get into that particular semantic quagmire. Let's use something a little vaguer, like "benefit." Presumably the person going into surgery wants to get something out of it, even if it's just an elective piece of cosmetic surgery to make them look better. Similarly, the girl that was murdered was subjected to the rebirthing treatment in order to benefit her in some way.

So we can look at any action in terms of the expected benefit, and the assumed risk. The benefit from my nose job is that I might look better. The risk is that I might die on the table. But if the benefit is higher than the risk (which is a decision that really, only I can make), then it's worth going under the knife.

However, to assess this tradeoff, I need an accurate estimate both of the benefit, and of the risk. If I underestimate the risk, or overestimate the benefit, then I'm harming myself.

Okay so far?

So, let's look at this "rebirthing therapy" in more detail.

The basic question any skeptic would be asking is : "Does it have anybenefit (beyond placebo) at all?"

If there's no benefit, then there's no reason -- not one -- to take the risk. And if there is, in fact, no benefit, but I believe that there is, then I'm taking a risk to no purpose. I'm harming myself. If I offer the therapy in the mistaken belief that there's a benefit, then I'm harming other people.

I see this attempt to collect instances of harm as being analogous to believers collecting verifiable instances of people who were cured after seeing a faith healer. Sure, such cases exist, but the causality is assumed. If you wouldn't consider a similar listing of such 'verified cures' as evidence... well, I think I'll quit repeating myself at this point.

Well, I don't think that we're merely "assuming" causality in the case of someone dying as a result of the behavior that kills them. If the girl hadn't been subjected to rebirthing treatment -- if someone hadn't believed that rebirthing treatment worked -- she would still be alive.

 

[voidx]

Re: Re: Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

Why must you continually insult people who do not agree with you? Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is the stupid one?

This made me laugh. Irony is a wonderful thing.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ashles,

I don't have time to review the entire thread. I'll just comment on a couple of the more memorable ones. I think the logic applies to all of them.

1. The child murdered by the person administering 'rebirthing' therapy. First of all, I'm not sure why this example is in there at all. It doesn't involve any sort of paranormal belief.

That harm occurred is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' is not so clear. I don't consider a person who dies on the operating table because the surgeon was drunk or otherwise incompetent to be an indictment of the surgical procedure that was attempted. Likewise, I don't consider this example to be an indictment of the 'belief' of the perpetrator of the crime.

2. The practice of psychic hotline operators of telling a person that their S.O. is cheating as a way to get them to stay on the line.

That harm occurs is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' of the caller is debatable. Personally, I call greed the cause of that crime, but that's my own biases showing. If a young women is dressed provacatively and raped, was the cause of the crime the way she dressed? In both cases, I think that the victim was made vulnerable by their belief/behavior, but I wouldn't call that vulnerability the cause of the crime.

I see this attempt to collect instances of harm as being analogous to believers collecting verifiable instances of people who were cured after seeing a faith healer. Sure, such cases exist, but the causality is assumed. If you wouldn't consider a similar listing of such 'verified cures' as evidence... well, I think I'll quit repeating myself at this point.

As far as playing devil's advocate being trolling behavior. Some places, yes it is. However, of all forums on the internet, I would think this is one where such behavior would be acceptable. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably any belief can be questioned with logic and reason being the criteria by which arguments are judged. My personal beliefs and motivations are irrelevant to the argument. Why do you keep making inaccurate suppositions regarding them and then claim that I am reacting defensively to supposed threats to my supposed beliefs?

Beth

Excellent post!

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

Why must you continually insult people who do not agree with you? Has it ever occurred to you that it might be you who is the stupid one?

This from YOU Ian?

Err, how many times have I called people stupid, idiots, morons, ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ etc. And how many times have I been suspended for such bevhaviour.

And now let's compare with how many times you have.

I can't help it if you get annoyed by the fact that I am one of the posters who continually has to explain why your theories about scientific facts are incorrect.

And I have to laugh at the fact that you have started praising posters simply because they are disagreeing with me.

And what the hell is the matter with you? You've just bought a new DVD player yet you STILL prefer to bicker on here?
Did you not remember to buy any DVDs?

 

[Beth]

I think there are a couple of aspects here that your medical analogy does not clearly deal with. The big one is the benefit/risk tradeoff.

Yes, I think I mentioned that in one of my first posts on the original threat. Harm has to be weighed against the benefits. The original thread was to collect anecdotal evidence of harm. My point was that if you are going to accept such evidence of harm, you must also accept similar anecdotal evidence of benefit or you are guilty of applying a double standard.

So, let's look at this "rebirthing therapy" in more detail.

Let's not. I tried to avoid critizing specific examples because I didn't want to get caught up in those details. Nor do I want to defend the benefits of something like rebirthing therapy or psychic hotlines. They were simply examples wherein the causality was assumed. Different people, with different agendas, could easily attribute the causality to something else.

Well, I don't think that we're merely "assuming" causality in the case of someone dying as a result of the behavior that kills them. If the girl hadn't been subjected to rebirthing treatment -- if someone hadn't believed that rebirthing treatment worked -- she would still be alive.

And if the mother had picked a different therapist, chances are she'd have survived the therapy. And if the adoption agency hadn't approved the mother, the child wouldn't have had the therapy and she'd still be alive. One can come up with any number of different scenarios wherein the child would have lived. Why pick just one? And why that one?

Now, I think I've said enough. At this point I'm repeating myself which is boring. You can believe or be skeptical, whatever you like, regarding the causality of any and all examples mentioned.

Beth

 

[drkitten]

And if the mother had picked a different therapist, chances are she'd have survived the therapy. And if the adoption agency hadn't approved the mother, the child wouldn't have had the therapy and she'd still be alive. One can come up with any number of different scenarios wherein the child would have lived. Why pick just one? And why that one?

There's no need to pick out a single scenario, nor is there any need to attribute a single unique cause for any event. As a matter of fact, that's usually a very fallacious way of reasoning, since the world usually operates on a multiple cause system.

However, if anyone involved in the operation -- the mother, the therapist, et cetera -- had bothered to investigate the safety and effectiveness of the proposed "therapy," then they would have found that it was both unsafe and ineffective. Under law, at least, there's a "reasonable person" doctrine that suggests that that you are responsible for anything that a reasonable person would conclude is likely to be a consequence of your actions.

If a reasonable person would have concluded that the mother was unfit, then, yes, I would hold the adoption agency accountable. If a reasonable person would have believed that a different therapist should have been chosen, I hold the mother culpable.

And since the proposed therapy was manifestly unsafe, I will state forthrightly that both the mother and the therapist were manifestly culpable in the negligent homicide of the girl because any "reasonable person" would have known that the treatment was manifestly unsafe and ineffective.

If I tell you that drinking a strong arsenic solution will cure your acne -- and you believe me, and do it -- then you will die.

And I can say, without hesitation, that anyone who believes that drinking an arsenic solution to cure their acne is a self-deluded idiot and causing harm to themselves. Which doesn't excuse the murderors who sell the solutions. But they're still dead, and their deluded beliefs caused them to be dead.

 

[Loki]

new drkitten,

That covered things pretty damn well! Yes, risk versus benefit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beth,

But, if we apply the same standard and logic to the other side of the argument, verified incidents of people being cured after taking homeopathic medicine would be justification for saying that homeopathy (or at least a belief in homeopathy ) is a contributing factor is bringing someone back to health.

You keep missing the point (deliberately or otherwise - I can't tell). The basic contention is :

belief -> action -> result

We have two specific cases of this general principle, which are :

1. belief -> action - > harm

2. belief -> action -> benefit

With the first case, the result being harm, you're not questioning the harm (as best I can see), and not questioning the action, or the link between the action and the harm. And you're not questioning whether they actually had the belief?? So you're questioning the move from belief to action?

Fair enough, it's hard to "prove" that link. Although in these cases the link is supported by the direct testimony of the particpants themselves, and there seems no real viable alternative. It seems a reasonable conclusion to infer the link.

In the second case, where the result is benefit, you are claiming a hypocritical approach from most posters. You are questioning why a testimony about homeopathy doesn't work just as well in support of this second contention as the previous 'result = harm' anecdotes do in support of the first.

The answer is simple - it does!

I accept the same link between 'belief' and 'action' in both cases, supported by the anecdote. It seems perfectly reasonable to conclude that the belief is what lead to the action. That's the good news for your case! However, I dispute the link between 'action' and 'benefit' in the homeopathy scenario - and the anecdote does nothing support this link.

So that's about as clear as I can get in explaining why you've got this wrong - you're asking "if an anecdote supports the link between belief and action in one scenario, why doesn't it do so in another?" And the answer is "it does!".

The problem (misunderstanding?) is because you're framing the question as "if an anecdote supports the link between belief and action in one scenario, why doesn't it support the link between action and result in another?" Hopefully, it's clear why it doesn't.

(edited for spelin)

 

[Throg]

Re: Double Standard?

quote:Originally posted by Beth
I would like to point out that what you are collecting here is anecdotal evidence. That doesn't make it invalid, nor does it mean that no harm occurs, but I think it wise to consider the opposite side. If someone were to be collecting similar evidence regarding the benefits of the paranormal, how would you respond? Would you consider it equally valid? Or would you dismiss such evidence as unreliable and unconvincing?

I believe Beth has a valid point here, in a number of respects.

Firstly that this is a collection of anecdotal evidence in the sense that it is evidence which has not been collected as part of a controlled sceintific study (though it is not all evidence in the form of anecdotes).

Secondly, these examples in no way show that it is generally the case that paranormal beliefs are harmful.

As a means to answer questions of the form, "what harm could it do?" I think these examples have a purpose but let us be careful not to think that they help us to win the argument that belief in the paranormal is generally or necessarily harmful.


Ashles: Thanks for letting me know I was posting in the wrong thread.

 

[Ashles]

But the reported examples are (almost) all checkable and verifiable with police records, medical records, media reports from the time...

And I don't see the point in doubting these examples in principle when none of us actually doubt that they took place.

As has been written above, a common question from believers is 'Where's the harm of these beliefs' - that thread is aiming to answer that question.
It is not saying that they should all be banned, or every paranormal belief is damaging, merely that there are certainly examples where it can be dangerous and harmful.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

And if the mother had picked a different therapist, chances are she'd have survived the therapy. And if the adoption agency hadn't approved the mother, the child wouldn't have had the therapy and she'd still be alive. One can come up with any number of different scenarios wherein the child would have lived. Why pick just one? And why that one?

You're confusing the appropriation of blame, and that of cause. Your argument above would seem to suggest that in the case of a drunk driver killing someone, we should just as easily blame the liquor store and the driver himself. Or hey, why not blame the car manufacturer, or the guy's parents for conceiving?

There is always a semi-infinite chain of events that lead to a single incident; cause and effect. Picking out some of these contributing events is not the same as determining blame for a particular incident.

Don't confuse "Who caused the problem?" with "What might have prevented it?"

 

[AOK Tiger]

I just wanted to define this a little more clearly.

The question is “What harm can belief in the paranormal cause ?”

Some VALID examples are given where beliefs led to harm. BUT… and this is a big but.. you could give valid examples of where belief in almost ANYTHING could lead to harm. Eg belief in political ideas have led to far more harm than any paranormal beliefs.

BUT.. the important thing here is Political beliefs are about something real.. Freedom, Democracy, Communism etc etc we KNOW they lead to a tangible results and are about particular ways to live our lives (wether good or bad.)

Paranormal beliefs are about something non-existent so any harm caused by them should be unacceptable to logical humans. (I would lump religion in with this too).

The real “crime” in paranormal belief is society’s inability to relegate these things to same level as the Easter Bunny. They should just be treated as amusing tricks and jokes.

Could you imagine any one (other than a child) ringing the Easter Bunny for help.. then taking the advice seriously.

Virtually none of the harm caused by paranormal belief would exist if the Ians of the world would face reality and admit the unlikelihood of any of the paranormal crap existing. We should continue to admonish the Ians and Beths of this world for helping perpetuate these ridiculous notions.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Secondly, these examples in no way show that it is generally the case that paranormal beliefs are harmful.

And did anyone say that?

I think these examples have a purpose but let us be careful not to think that they help us to win the argument that belief in the paranormal is generally or necessarily harmful.

Ditto.

The idea, I think, is just to point out to uncritical believers that the spectrum of the effect of such beliefs doesn't just range from consolation for bereavement through harmless fun to mild annoyance at being duped.

Re the latest "What's The Harm" item --- more than four hundred psychics tried to "help the police"? And all failed?

You'd think by chance alone, one might have got close.

Ah well, they can try again next time there's an unsolved crime.

 

[Throg]

And did anyone say that?

Many of the posts have talked about the harm caused by belief systems rather than the harm caused, in a particular instance by belief-instigated actions.

Re the latest "What's The Harm" item --- more than four hundred psychics tried to "help the police"? And all failed?

There's no need to try and convince me that belief in the paranormal is irrational. I quite agree that falsifiable theories are the only way to justify a belief and that all of the paranormal beliefs I am aware of fail the test. I just think it is incumbent on sceptics (and I count myself a sceptic) do not allow our zeal for reason to cause us to become irrational in our arguments against unreason.

 

[Ashles]

I just think it is incumbent on sceptics (and I count myself a sceptic) do not allow our zeal for reason to cause us to become irrational in our arguments against unreason.

Who is doing this? Can you quote anyone who is becoming unreasonable or irrational in their zeal? Otherwise you are warning against the behaviour of a strawman.

I think Aussie Thinker explained the situation and the thread very well. I don't really understand your complaint - it appears to be against behaviour that no-one has displayed.

 

[Throg]

Who is doing this? Can you quote anyone who is becoming unreasonable or irrational in their zeal? Otherwise you are warning against the behaviour of a strawman.
B]

As I have already pointed out, a number of posts have talked about the harm caused by belief systems rather than the harm caused, in a particular instance by belief-instigated actions. That is unreasonable.

I think Aussie Thinker explained the situation and the thread very well. I don't really understand your complaint - it appears to be against behaviour that no-one has displayed. [/

The behaviour has been displayed several times and the fact that you overlook this suggests that you are allowing zeal to cloud your judgement. Look through the thread again. If you can really find no examples of the specific conflation I identify, then I will replicate point them out to you.

 

[Ashles]

As I have already pointed out, a number of posts have talked about the harm caused by belief systems rather than the harm caused, in a particular instance by belief-instigated actions. That is unreasonable.

When someone is harmed as the result of believing in a certain thing it is perfectly justifiable to blame that belief. It doesn't mean all instances will lead to that result, but it should be highlighted so people know that it is not always harmless.

Belief in things like homeopathy and other healing claims can be of real danger. It doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in what they like, but they need to know that homeopathy by itself will not deliver the results that are often claimed. This is perfectly reasonable and a thread showing how extremes in belief systems can cause harm is completely justified.

Anyone who thinks the thread is anti- these beliefs is missing the point.

 

[Throg]

When someone is harmed as the result of believing in a certain thing it is perfectly justifiable to blame that belief. It doesn't mean all instances will lead to that result, but it should be highlighted so people know that it is not always harmless.

I absolutely agree with you on that point and I believe I was quite clear in stating that in that there is value in highlighting instances of harm. Read my post again and then ask yourself why you are telling me something I have already stipulated.

Belief in things like homeopathy and other healing claims can be of real danger

I agree and have said so. It is the second to lats paragraph in my orignal post (just beore I thank you for pointing me to this thread).

It doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in what they like, but they need to know that homeopathy by itself will not deliver the results that are often claimed. This is perfectly reasonable and a thread showing how extremes in belief systems can cause harm is completely justified.

I agree with all of this but none of it has anything to do with my post or whether or not some people in this thread and the thread from which it was derived have conflated harm caused, in a particular instance by belief-instigated actions with the general proposition that belief systems cause harm.

Anyone who thinks the thread is anti- these beliefs is missing the point

Anyone who thinks anything you have said in this post was relevant to anything I said in my posts is missing the point.

 

[Ashles]

I agree with all of this but none of it has anything to do with my post or whether or not some people in this thread and the thread from which it was derived have conflated harm caused, in a particular instance by belief-instigated actions with the general proposition that belief systems cause harm.

Have I not made this clear somehow?
You are implying I have not understood your post whereas I have already explained my attitude repeatedly prior to your postings.

Belief systems can cause harm. We are not saying belief systems always do cause harm. If you feel anyone is implying otherwise then please quote them and question their attitudes.

I can't really make my position any clearer than that.
If you feel anyone is implying that belief systems cause harm then quote their statements and comment on it.