This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Biofeedback - Replacing Medicine?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kalisha
I think you're taking the clinical definition of biofeedback and turning it into some sort of mystical "will yourself better" thing, but that's not what it is. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, you're basically hooking yourself up to a computer so that it can tell you to relax and de-stress. It's like the sci-fi version of meditating or doing yoga.
We know that stress negatively affects our heart rate and blood pressure, that it causes headaches and just generally makes us "feel bad." Those are the things that biofeedback can fix - things that
usually
don't need medication anyway.
Heart rate and blood pressure are the exception to that rule, as people are often medicated for them. However, the majority of people being medicated have contributing factors other than stress (e.g. poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, bum genetics) that biofeedback won't fix. If stress is the only factor in the equation, then sure, biofeedback might help and be able to replace medication for that particular individual at some point in the future - but the same goes for whatever their de-stressing technique of choice is.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm sorry, but I really don't follow what you're doing here. There is no "agree" or "disagree" with something like this. Either there is scientific evidence or there isn't.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your brain wants to see proof that something exists before you acknowledge its existence.
No, my brain wants to not make baseless extrapolations. I'm all for "think-tanking" new ideas up. But there is a very strong line between theory and baseless extrapolation.
I'm not "bothered" by your posts. I just see you going nowhere. You start with a
what-if
and somehow arrive at something you seem to think it viable.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why wonder when scientific research has been done? That's what I'm getting at.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yeah, most of the response has been attacking me for posting something that appears to be pointless
Please quote the posts that you believe are attacking you.
...to challenge that which has been "established."
If you're going to challenge or support scientific data, you'd be ill-advised to use evidence that fails to provide the same surety as the evidence in question. As hard as you try, thinking something could be the case doesn't override scientific evidence. I would advise you to read the meta-analysis I linked, which contains full references for further reading. Then, if you don't agree with what has been presented, go out and find evidence for your counter-position, and use that as a vehicle for further discussion.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
475128
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
you can't produce conclusive evidence either way (meaning that the other theory is completely destroyed) with our current knowledge of science.
The meta-analysis I linked seems to demonstrate otherwise. Again, your thought experiment, anecdotal evidence, etc. are not grounds to refute or confirm the scientific evidence provided.
I've learned quite a bit about the way that this community reacts to this type of discussion
We see an issue, and we research and provide the best evidence for or against the position that we can find. That's how all knowledge comes about. You seem to be content with not studying or acknowledging the evidence, which kind of halts any possible discussion.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Oh, it's over already...?
I realize that I cannot scientifically prove any of this to you, but it's similar to the Creationism/Evolution debate - you can't produce conclusive evidence either way (meaning that the other theory is completely destroyed) with our current knowledge of science.
Yes and no. You can provide evidence to suggest that it doesn't work, as Hyper has done. This is contrary to Creationism, where there can be no possible evidence to support / deny it.
Our doctor has cured himself of cancer 17 times (he was diagnosed by the traditional medical community each time, AFTER he had figured it out himself).
Two points on this:
a) Of course he'd be diagnosed after he figured it out, because he's not going to get himself checked out for cancer if he didn't think he had it in the first place.
b) If he's 'cured himself' 17 times, I'd suggest that the cure isn't terribly effective, no? More than likely, the cancer had simply gone into remission.
The point isn't to get anywhere. The point is to explore the possibility of getting somewhere.
I like your optimism, but what you're doing at the moment is saying "The sky is green!", and trying to defend your claim against all the evidence against you.
Theorising is great and all, but at the end of the day, theories have to be put to the test in practical, scientific tests. You're saying that you can't scientifically prove it, but that's not true - you can test it the same way that drug researchers test their medicinal drugs. The problem for your argument is that such tests have been done already, and they've shown that it doesn't work.
The exploration of the possibility has been, and is being done. The problem is that you're exploring the 'definite' of getting somewhere, without accepting the (1-x) probability that your theory won't get you anywhere.
Yeah, when I end up working full time (post-college), I'm probably SoL - I'm likely going to end up doing the same damn thing every day.
No, that's not true. If you become a researcher, which you're suggesting you have the brains to be, then you'll be working on whatever projects you like (once you get to that stage in a career). But, based on your contributions to this thread, it doesn't suggest that you'd make it very far in a research industry, simply because you're not acknowledging the results in the field to date.
There are two parts to having an open mind. One part is to be open to new ideas and explore them to their fullest potential. The other part is to be open to challenges and evidence against your current mindset, accept them and adapt.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.