Is Reiki a form of Force power?

Well, Fyxe, I happen to think that we should review all of the claims and all of the evidence, rather than filter only the evidence that "it works" for some unspecified purpose. And, as it stands, there is some evidence that Reiki works as a calming technique, and as a placebo, no evidence that it works as an actual cure of any serious bodily ailments beyond stress-related ones and strong evidence that it is not based on any sort of magical "energy" manipulations either the practitioners or their patients are able to sense.

You are of course free to pick and choose which evidence you like the sound of enough to acknowledge and to ignore all of the rest at your own discretion. What would confuse me about that approach though is why one would bother considering evidence to begin with, if the conclusion one wants to arrive at is already determined in advance and evidence is not a factor that could change the course of thought - if one dare even call it so - anyway...

Fyxe wrote: I determine that it is a force power because I believe in the evidence that it works and I call that power the force!

Often times it’s testimony vs research. Both just as valid as the other when it comes to personal choices.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Often times it’s testimony vs research. Both just as valid as the other when it comes to personal choices.

False. Both are just as influential over personal choices as the other, but they are not equally valid at all.

One of them carries minimal information with maximal bias even assuming honest reporting (and what a generous grant that is!), while the other is some attempt at actually evaluating the options with as much fairness as can be mustered, with some effort at minimizing biases and seeking out as much information relevant to the decision at hand before making it.
One of them is an open invitation for and embrace of ignorance while the other is a search for and accumulation of knowledge.
One of them is an indulgence toward passion, while the other is an exercise in patience and reservedness.
One of them is in opposition to the Code by just about any reading of it that respects the wording at all, the other is in line with it...

Nuff said...

Gisteron wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Often times it’s testimony vs research. Both just as valid as the other when it comes to personal choices.

False. Both are just as influential over personal choices as the other, but they are not equally valid at all.

One of them carries minimal information with maximal bias even assuming honest reporting (and what a generous grant that is!), while the other is some attempt at actually evaluating the options with as much fairness as can be mustered, with some effort at minimizing biases and seeking out as much information relevant to the decision at hand before making it.
One of them is an open invitation for and embrace of ignorance while the other is a search for and accumulation of knowledge.
One of them is an indulgence toward passion, while the other is an exercise in patience and reservedness.
One of them is in opposition to the Code by just about any reading of it that respects the wording at all, the other is in line with it...

Nuff said...

To you ...that’s how you see it - and that’s ok too. I totally understand your side, I don’t share it but I don’t have to for you to be valid.

There's a difference in "valid" as a socially affirming statement and a scientific one. I agree with Gist on this one. You can't just "both sides" science like that.

Well I dont follow science and I dont think research means much when the researchers just decide whatever they want and then tell us what we should believe. I think experience is much stronger than those. I have been meditating in this a great deal and I have found a very personal and strong path the the power of the force with the help of many friends that have shown me those paths here. So for you to tell me this place does not believe in the force is just a lie. So why should I think about other things you say?

Fyxe wrote: Well I dont follow science and I dont think research means much when the researchers just decide whatever they want and then tell us what we should believe.

Uuuummm...wow, just... This statement and the attitude it represents kind of explains a lot about you. I'm a faithful sort, at this point I'm decidedly more of a Jediist than a Jedi Realist, but, I can't defend this, man.

The Jedi of fiction, whom you purport to aspire to directly, literally emulating? They didn't reject science, like, at all.

Also, science is how this conversation is even possible, right now.

Do you want to, maybe, reconsider your choice of words/attitude, here? Maybe think about them, and how well they actually align with your path??

Fyxe, science is not separate from experience. Science requires experimentation (the testing of an idea) and analysis of the results of experimentation. If you have an idea and you try to see if it works and compare it to other ideas that have similar results, that is science. Science is not just scientists making things up, it is the analysis of the phenomenal world -- something of vital importance to understanding the Force. The Force does not stand in opposition to science; it is inseparable from it.

Fyxe wrote: Well I dont follow science and I dont think research means much when the researchers just decide whatever they want and then tell us what we should believe.

That is literally the exact opposite of what science is. It is, however, exactly what you're doing. You're ignoring evidence to believe in whatever you want.

Fyxe wrote: So for you to tell me this place does not believe in the force is just a lie. So why should I think about other things you say?

Another baseless accusation. I don't believe anyone has told you that 'the force is just a lie'. What we've told you is that we don't agree with you're understanding of the force because it is a carbon copy of the one from the movies and has no bearing in reality or rationality.

I honestly can't tell if you're deliberately oblivious to the evidence presented to you, if the discourse here is too nuanced for you to comprehend, or if you're just a troll.

Either way, 4-5 people here have repeatedly and patiently answered your question over several days and across several threads, often providing sources or objective reasoning to assist your understanding. You have pretty much disregarded everything they have said, often accusing of them of saying things they never said, telling them they are 'not real jedi' and suggesting that they shouldn't be here.

Engaging in this conversation any further is beyond pointless. I'm out.

Peace and love people x

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I totally understand your side, I don’t share it but I don’t have to for you to be valid.

You are right, we don't have to be anything alike. I can carry on respecting the Code, you can carry on rejecting it. I have no investment in your attitude towards it, it is not any of my business.

Fyxe wrote: Well I dont follow science and I dont think research means much when the researchers just decide whatever they want and then tell us what we should believe.

Politicians tell you what you should believe. Preachers tell you what you should believe. Researchers have more pressing things to worry about than what you happen to believe. But, yes, they are people, and they do make decisions just like the rest of us mortals do. Research, however, is not decision making, it is investigating.
Now I can't speak about liberal arts, gender studies, or English literature, where "true from a certain point of view" is so much of a normal and routine approach to making assertions that randomly generated articles can make it past peer review, but as a physicist I can tell you it takes unspeakable amounts of effort to get anything published. Your article has to be well cited, your claim has to be original and profound, your theoretical derivations sound yet comprehensibly simple, your experimental data positively indicative of your claim to a statistical significance economists wouldn't dare dream about and if you want it to be a journal that academic libraries broadly subscribe to you had better present some impactful technological implications even if all you do is fundamental science...

So no... It's not just the researchers "deciding what ever they want". Were I more of a man of passion the sheer arrogance of that portrayal would surely infuriate me. Nor is it about what you should believe. Do feel free to blabber on using your microprocessor computer to speak to people on the other side of the globe about how garbage the very thing is that has gifted you such marvels of technology.

So for you to tell me this place does not believe in the force is just a lie. So why should I think about other things you say?

Technically it is not a lie. Places do not believe things, people do. And as many said before and as I summarized recently myself, different people believe different things. Nobody made a claim about what everybody here does or does not believe, because nobody here was elected to speak on behalf of the rest. The only one lying, frankly, is you, as you say what people told you when they didn't. Now, why should you think about anything anybody says? Well, nothing can oblige you. Feel free to not think, if that is how you'd rather carry on. At the risk of sounding rude or mean, I'm at this point not entirely certain as to how grave a loss that would really be for anyone...