Nurture Nature

[petrushkagoogol]

Nurture Nature....,

See the trees grow,

 

Nurture Nature....,

See the rivers flow,

 

Nurture Nature....,

Have a tryst with the divine,

 

Nurture Nature....,

See your aura shine !!!

 

Man can engineer changes in his environment by building roads, bridges etc.

Conversely, Nature can engineer changes in human behavior from tranquility to despair.

 

To sum it up would an unpolluted environment reflect positive changes in our aura or bio-magnetic field ? 

 

[exchemist]

 

Nurture Nature....,

See the trees grow,

 

Nurture Nature....,

See the rivers flow,

 

Nurture Nature....,

Have a tryst with the divine,

 

Nurture Nature....,

See your aura shine !!!

 

Man can engineer changes in his environment by building roads, bridges etc.

Conversely, Nature can engineer changes in human behavior from tranquility to despair.

 

To sum it up would an unpolluted environment reflect positive changes in our aura or bio-magnetic field ? 

 

Yet another junk post from you, but since you mention some specific woo concepts, I will comment on these, for the benefit of any other readers.

 

There is no evidence for any "aura"or "bio-magnetic field" emitted by human beings.

 

The so-called "aura" in Kirlian photography is a product of corona discharge, a well-known phenomenon where high electrical voltages are in use, as they in the Kirlian process. Other claims, by people who allege they can "see" auras, cannot be objectively verified and seem most likely to be products of neurological disturbance, e.g. synaesthesia. More here: http://skepdic.com/auras.html

 

"Biomagnetic" fields are another myth. There is no reliable evidence that human beings generate any significant magnetic field, which is hardly surprising since to do so requires there to be moving electric charges in the body. There are very tiny electric currents in the brain that can be detected via their associated magnetic field, but that's about it. Some people wrongly describe the ability of some creatures to detect (as opposed to produce) magnetic fields as biomagnetism. The term for this is magnetoception.

 

All the rest is New Age, crystals-and-sh1t woo. 

[A-wal]

Like meditation was not so long ago? Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because it isn't proven.

All you're doing is rejecting something because it doesn't fit into you're world view, like Christians who reject evolution, the Earth being older than six thousands years and the Earth being roughly spherical. How could science progress with that attitude. Electricity exists all throughout our bodies, not just our brains. That's how we are able to contract our mussels allowing us to move, and as far as I know it's completely impossible for an electrical current to exist without the associated magnetic field. Whether or not this magnetic field is strong enough to even be measurable outside of the body is another thing.

This is just close mindedness masquerading as scepticism. True scepticism is about keeping an open mind and not accepting claims that can't be proven, not rejecting those claims. That's every bit as bad as believing in something that has no evidence simply because you want it to be true. It's very lazy and dangerous to allow a certain group to decide for you what's legitimate and what isn't, especially one that routinely ignores evidence that contradicts what it wants to be true while at the same time making ridiculous claims based on far more flimsy evidence.

Mainstream science claims that there's no such thing as chakras or chi and that reiki has no effect despite many experiments that seem to show otherwise. How dare they claim that something that they obviously can't even gasp isn't real despite many generations of people that actually do understand the concept having benefited greatly from it, as if they're somehow better qualified to pass judgement on it than the people who developed it. 'It doesn't pass our very limited tests so it's not real." Really?

There's no real English terms that accurately describe chi so we're forced to use terms like energy and then people jump on the this as evidence that the process is against scientific principles, because that's not how energy works. They use experiments that are specifically designed to show a null result as evidence of the invalidity of what they're trying to disprove. I could link to dozens of other (possibly also biased) studies that clearly seem to show the opposite. They continually use ad hominem and straw man arguments in a hollow attempt to refute something that they clearly have very little understanding of.

I keep hearing how science has almost figured out the universe and just needs to work on the details. Utter bullcrap! Science hasn't got the first clue what the universe or consciousness even is. The other one is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To think that some claims should require more evidence than others is utterly absurd and completely unscientific. It doesn't matter if you think the claim is far-fetched, that's a subjective opinion. All claims should be judged equally and own their own merit, regardless of whether or not you'd like them to be true.


Hmm, that turned into a bit more of a rant than I intended.

[current]

Like meditation was not so long ago? Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because it isn't proven.

All you're doing is rejecting something because it doesn't fit into you're world view, like Christians who reject evolution, the Earth being older than six thousands years and the Earth being roughly spherical. How could science progress with that attitude. Electricity exists all throughout our bodies, not just our brains. That's how we are able to contract our mussels allowing us to move, and as far as I know it's completely impossible for an electrical current to exist without the associated magnetic field. Whether or not this magnetic field is strong enough to even be measurable outside of the body is another thing.

This is just close mindedness masquerading as scepticism. True scepticism is about keeping an open mind and not accepting claims that can't be proven, not rejecting those claims. That's every bit as bad as believing in something that has no evidence simply because you want it to be true. It's very lazy and dangerous to allow a certain group to decide for you what's legitimate and what isn't, especially one that routinely ignores evidence that contradicts what it wants to be true while at the same time making ridiculous claims based on far more flimsy evidence.

Mainstream science claims that there's no such thing as chakras or chi and that reiki has no effect despite many experiments that seem to show otherwise. How dare they claim that something that they obviously can't even gasp isn't real despite many generations of people that actually do understand the concept having benefited greatly from it, as if they're somehow better qualified to pass judgement on it than the people who developed it. 'It doesn't pass our very limited tests so it's not real." Really?

There's no real English terms that accurately describe chi so we're forced to use terms like energy and then people jump on the this as evidence that the process is against scientific principles, because that's not how energy works. They use experiments that are specifically designed to show a null result as evidence of the invalidity of what they're trying to disprove. I could link to dozens of other (possibly also biased) studies that clearly seem to show the opposite. They continually use ad hominem and straw man arguments in a hollow attempt to refute something that they clearly have very little understanding of.

I keep hearing how science has almost figured out the universe and just needs to work on the details. Utter bullcrap! Science hasn't got the first clue what the universe or consciousness even is. The other one is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To think that some claims should require more evidence than others is utterly absurd and completely unscientific. It doesn't matter if you think the claim is far-fetched, that's a subjective opinion. All claims should be judged equally and own their own merit, regardless of whether or not you'd like them to be true.

Hmm, that turned into a bit more of a rant than I intended.

The rant a-wal is justified.

 

Agreed

 

The scientific method has its limits . What is not measurable and non material is not therefore able to be " proved " .

 

Yet some people are able to SEE the auras surrounding people .

[A-wal]

Yet some people are able to SEE the auras surrounding people .

Some people claim to be able to see ghosts too, and make lots of money from the desperation of people who have lost someone they care about and want to believe what some stranger is telling them. They call themselves mediums and I've never seen one remotely convincing.

 

If these people can see auras then this should be testable, assuming that they can tell the difference between a healthy aura and an unhealthy one, someone with a terminal disease for example. I'm not sure (assuming auras do exist outside the body) that they can be seen in the viable spectrum. That would make them very easy to prove.

 

I suppose it's possible that people could sense auras with something other than eye sight and the brain uses that information to create a visual image. Can they still see the auras when they close their eyes? If not I'm not buying it (even in principle) because I don't see how it could work.

[exchemist]

Like meditation was not so long ago? Don't be so quick to dismiss something just because it isn't proven.

 

All you're doing is rejecting something because it doesn't fit into you're world view, like Christians who reject evolution, the Earth being older than six thousands years and the Earth being roughly spherical. How could science progress with that attitude. Electricity exists all throughout our bodies, not just our brains. That's how we are able to contract our mussels allowing us to move, and as far as I know it's completely impossible for an electrical current to exist without the associated magnetic field. Whether or not this magnetic field is strong enough to even be measurable outside of the body is another thing.

 

This is just close mindedness masquerading as scepticism. True scepticism is about keeping an open mind and not accepting claims that can't be proven, not rejecting those claims. That's every bit as bad as believing in something that has no evidence simply because you want it to be true. It's very lazy and dangerous to allow a certain group to decide for you what's legitimate and what isn't, especially one that routinely ignores evidence that contradicts what it wants to be true while at the same time making ridiculous claims based on far more flimsy evidence.

 

Mainstream science claims that there's no such thing as chakras or chi and that reiki has no effect despite many experiments that seem to show otherwise. How dare they claim that something that they obviously can't even gasp isn't real despite many generations of people that actually do understand the concept having benefited greatly from it, as if they're somehow better qualified to pass judgement on it than the people who developed it. 'It doesn't pass our very limited tests so it's not real." Really?

 

There's no real English terms that accurately describe chi so we're forced to use terms like energy and then people jump on the this as evidence that the process is against scientific principles, because that's not how energy works. They use experiments that are specifically designed to show a null result as evidence of the invalidity of what they're trying to disprove. I could link to dozens of other (possibly also biased) studies that clearly seem to show the opposite. They continually use ad hominem and straw man arguments in a hollow attempt to refute something that they clearly have very little understanding of.

 

I keep hearing how science has almost figured out the universe and just needs to work on the details. Utter bullcrap! Science hasn't got the first clue what the universe or consciousness even is. The other one is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To think that some claims should require more evidence than others is utterly absurd and completely unscientific. It doesn't matter if you think the claim is far-fetched, that's a subjective opinion. All claims should be judged equally and own their own merit, regardless of whether or not you'd like them to be true.

 

 

Hmm, that turned into a bit more of a rant than I intended.

As I say, there is no objective evidence for either auras or biomagnetism. Until such time as there is, they are not science. 

 Nothing "closed-minded" or to do with a "worldview" here, just basic scientific-method scepticism. If you want me to accept there is something has a scientific basis, show me objective i.e. reproducible, evidence for it.

Edited March 22, 2017 by exchemist

[A-wal]

There must be a magnetic field present within our bodies because there's always a current flowing but whether it can have any kind of effect outside of the body is something else entirely.

 

I wouldn't want you or anyone else to accept anything that hasn't be shown to be an accurate description of nature. What I have an issue with is the rejection of concepts based on belief systems or social bias and peer pressure (as in fear of a loss of credibility).

 

Not rejecting something out of hand in no way equates to accepting it as fact, or even as likely.

Edited March 22, 2017 by A-wal