Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 Dr. Siff, What exactly is the point of this 'critique' anyway? Character assassination? [Elementary, dear , elementary - pursuit of the 'truth'. By now you should realise that critiques provided by this group are no respecters of persons, only of the correctness, honesty and validity of the information that they proliferate. As a fairly dedicated scientist-practitioner, I could not care an iota if the Pope, the Queen of England or Einstein made a host of plausible-sounding claims; I would still not hesitate to question those claims and ask for evidence. My comments had nothing to do with Weil per se, but everything to do with ANYONE who makes any far-reaching claims in public, especially about health. Mel Siff] Although not as irrelevant as the prior dismissal based on his bodyfat percentage, I still fail to see the point of dwelling on his ideas regarding quantum physics, potentially positive socio- historical roles of psychotics, and spoon-benders. None of these issues speak to the focus of his work. If you actually read his books, you will find many merciless critiques of bogus 'alternative' medical treatments and fad diets, as well as many mainstream medical practices. I don't think he's right about everything he says, but on balance, I find his ideas valuable, and I think he is probably doing his audience more good than harm. He doesn't insist on uncritical acceptance of a system or plan based on his ideas, he doesn't sell an extensive line of overpriced supplements, or propagate a pyramid scheme. Among the good: his emphasis on eating a wide variety of unprocessed foods for health and disease prevention; preference for gentler, less invasive treatments, and sometimes safer, less refined medicines; the use of cross-cultural epidemiological information to inform dietary choices; willingness to consider treatments and ways of living practiced by other cultures, even if they don't intially seem to make sense or have an obvious rational explanation. [i actually DID state that some of his material definitely had merit, but it is well known in the portals of propaganda theory that the best way to sell dubious, abhorrent or unproved ideas is to admix them with valid, proven and worthy ideas. That is why we have to learn to sift out the chaff and use the real wheat of the claims of anyone who stands up there, chooses the limelight and invites scrutiny by those high-profile actions. Mel Siff] I think this last point is especially important, and sorely absent around here. I think this board can be very educational, but the atmosphere is so hypercritical and rationality-obsessed that I wonder if you aren't inadvertantly promoting a general attitude of dismissiveness and hostility to new ideas and methods. If one cuts everything to shreds that isn't yet flawlessly explained and scientifically proven, where does that leave innovation? New ideas and alternate paradigms are by their nature unproven, and sometimes unprovable from within the rules of the old paradigms which they challenge. [The world of science and philosophy is characterised by constant analysis, argumentation, proof, rebuttal, searching, discarding and innovating. Yes, application of this level of scrutiny can be intimidating and irritating to some, but this is what has produced many of the greatest ideas, inventions, advances, laws, discoveries and thinkers in history. It has NEVER stifled innovation; on the contrary, it has taken us out of the Stone Age to the Internet, Space and all levels of genius in life. If an idea and its promoters cannot stand up to careful scrutiny, then that is the fault of the idea and its promoters, not the critics. This board carries out this tradition in a generally very civilised, scientific and open fashion, with contributions from those on all sides of the fence, so that nobody is being excluded or forced to believe. That is what makes the Supertraining list quite special and what breeds a far more discerning and more educated person in the world of applied sports, strength, fitness and health. Mel Siff] Since you brought it up, Weil's discussion of psychosis is a good example. Looking at the phenomenon from the perspective of the course of societies and the human race over large periods of time, 'psychosis' can be seen as a valuable force for change and adaptation. Many of the most pivotal advances in philosophy, science, art, and technological invention were and are the products of 'psychotic' minds. Would we be better off, if these minds had been systematically patholigized and medicated or surgeried into a state of 'mental health'? [Weil's analysis of 'psychosis' on the basis of flawed and biased human classification, sociopolitics and linguistic manoeuverings is naive. There is a major difference between chronic states of organic mental disease and societal labels of societally-dissident ways of thinking or periodic altered states of consciousness. One can pathologise any state by decree; the politicians, social workers and psychologists may do that on the basis of opinion, educational paradigms and bias, but genuine pathology is a state of physiological functioning and cannot simply be legislated into existence. Even, then one cannot decree that pathology cannot periodically produce 'normality' and vice versa. Mel Siff] I, for one, am glad I live in a world where the madness of Beethovens, Nietzsches, and Teslas has been allowed to run wild. Looked at from within a contemporary allopathic medical paradigm, these ideas may seem a disservice to sick persons who need treatment - that's because this paradigm is fixed on a smaller scale, and has different assumptions and aims. I wonder what it will do to the long-term survival chances of our species if we " progress " in terms of our ability to enforce mental normality with pills and therapies that view the issue only in terms of individuals coping with narrowly conceived situations. [Judging from all your remarks, it appears that you did not read through all of the recommended websites which analysed several aspects of Weil's work. Please don't rely solely on the extracts that I pasted into my letter. The critics all acknowledged that Weil repeated some genuinely useful and proven information. but they also addressed some non-sense and nonsense to show that, despite a person's popularity and status, we should all still recall that old Roman admonition " caveat emptor " (beware the buyer). Mel Siff] Wilbanks Madison, WI --- -------- Mcsiff@a... wrote: > I have just been reading past letters that were submitted to the > Supertraining list while I was lecturing overseas and one of them was > critical of some of my earlier comments on Dr Weil. In the interests of a > little more completeness, let me now expand upon any previously cursory > critique. > > Weil, MD, is variously described on the covers of his best-selling > books as " the guru of alternative medicine, " " one of the most skilled, > articulate, and important leaders in the field of health and healing, " " a > pioneer in the medicine of the future, " and " an extraordinary phenomenon. " > > INTRODUCTION > > Many folk will have heard about Dr Weil, well-known guru of the alternative > and mind centred therapeutic world. Here are some extracts of an article > that analysed his ideas and impact on health beliefs in the West, written by > Arnold S. Relman, editor-in-chief emeritus of The New England Journal of > Medicine and professor emeritus of medicine and social medicine at Harvard > Medical School. The website containing the full article appears at the end > of this letter. > > Like so many strongly marketed gurus in the health and fitness world, his > material offers a convincing mixture of fact, fiction, science and > speculation that can easily persuade the average person of its universal > accuracy and value. As is well known, inaccuracies and untruths are far more > readily accepted when intermingled with facts and figures and his material is > no exception to that marketing and propaganda rule. > > The following website summarises some of the methods used in faulty > argumentation: > > <http://shell.rmi.net/~mhartwig/falla.htm> > > Yes, there genuinely is some useful information in Weil's publications, some > very valid criticisms of medical science and some valuable comments on the > role of the mind in healing, but the absence of corroborating evidence, his > heavy reliance on " stoned " , intuitive or drug-assisted thinking above logical > analysis, his shaky understanding of quantum physics, human psychoses and > neural processing often do the world of complementary health a grave > disservice, because it the reinforces the contention by many scientists that > complementary health is primitive, unsubstantiated and emotive. > > The following websites enable one to correct some of Weil's misconceptions > (and those of Deepak Chopra) about quantum physics: > > http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qkids.html > http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html > > Weil's beliefs that " Sickness is the manifestation of evil in the body, just > as health is the manifestation of holiness " and that psychotic patients > probably are the most advanced avatars in disguise are especially damaging to > the cause of complementary health. > > Read some of Weil's material and assess its worth in the light of this > article by Dr Relman at: > > <http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/archive/1298/121498/relman121498.ht\ ml> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > EXTRACTS FROM ARTICLE > > 1. Health and Healing, published in 1983, was the last of Weil's > comprehensive and broadly conceived commentaries on health and disease. > Beginning in 1995, with Natural Health, Natural Medicine, he produced a > series of three " how-to " manuals on wellness and self-care, which established > his current reputation as the people's doctor and " America's most trusted > medical expert. " The next was Spontaneous Healing, and the third Eight Weeks > to Optimum Health. > > 2. The most recent of Weil's publications is Ask Dr. Weil, a compilation of > questions and answers that have appeared on his website. To judge from the > range of questions and the confidence with which they are answered, Weil > considers himself an authority on almost every field in medicine. Like his > previous books, it includes strong, unqualified recommendations for unlikely > and totally unproven remedies . . . . > > 3. In addition to his books, other channels for the dissemination of Weil's > medical wisdom include audiocassettes and compact discs on such subjects as > " Eight Meditations for Optimum Health " and " Sound Body, Sound Mind: Music for > Healing with Weil, M.D. " His influence is also spread through > videotapes of lectures and seminars, and appearances on television shows such > as " Larry King Live. " Even when compared with the ballyhoo surrounding the > other icons of alternative medicine, the marketing success of " Weil, > M.D. " is extraordinary. To understand it, one has to appreciate the > synergistic interaction between the special talents of the man and the > current momentum of the alternative medicine movement. . . . > > 4. Weil's writings are ambiguous about the conflict between science and > alternative medicine, as they are about many other issues in alternative > medicine. Yes, he thinks that all healing methods ought to be tested; and > yes, modern science can make useful contributions to our understanding of > health and disease. Yet the scientific method is not, for Weil, the only way, > or even the best way, to learn about nature and the human body. Many > important truths are intuitively evident and do not need scientific support, > even when they seem to contradict logic. Conventional science-based medicine > has its uses, but they are limited. Like so many of the other gurus of > alternative medicine, Weil is not bothered by logical contradictions in his > argument, or encumbered by a need to search for objective evidence. > > 5. According to Weil, many of his basic insights about the causes of disease > and the nature of healing come from what he calls " stoned thinking, " that is, > thoughts experienced while under the influence of psychedelic agents or > during other states of " altered consciousness " induced by trances, ritual > magic, hypnosis, meditation, and the like. He cites some of the > characteristics of " stoned thinking " that give it advantages over " straight " > thinking; these include a greater reliance on " intuition " and an " acceptance > of the ambivalent nature of things, " by which he means a tolerance for " the > coexistence of opposites that appear to be mutually antagonistic. " In Weil's > view, intellect, logic, and inductive reasoning from observed fact are the > limited instruments of " straight " thinking, and should be subservient to > guidance by the intuitive insights that are gained during states of altered > consciousness and " stoned " thinking. > > 6. The extent to which Weil reveres consciousness regardless of its thought > content is revealed in the final sections of his " Stonesville " chapter. Here > he favors us with his views on psychosis, on the Jungian theory of shared > universal consciousness, and on the reality of mental telepathy, extrasensory > perception, and hallucinatory experiences. On psychosis: " Psychotics are > persons whose nonordinary experience is exceptionally strong ... every > psychotic is a potential sage or healer. " With regard to the National > Institute of Mental Health's research efforts to find the physical basis of > psychosis: " If it sticks to its present course, nimh will be the last > institution in America to recognize the positive potential of psychosis--a > potential so overwhelming that I am almost tempted to call psychotics the > evolutionary vanguard of our species. They possess the secret of changing > reality by changing the mind; if they can learn to use that talent for > positive ends, there are no limits to what they can accomplish. > > THE ENTIRE ARTICLE > > For those who are interested, the following website provides the full article: > > <http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/archive/1298/121498/relma n121498.html> > > At another level, here is another evaluation of Weil's ideas: > > <http://www.randi.org/jr/10-25-1999.html> > > Dr Mel C Siff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2001 Report Share Posted October 14, 2001 " There is a major difference between chronic states of organic mental disease and societal labels of societally-dissident ways of thinking or periodic altered states of consciousness. " The only difference I see is that in the first case the deviance from normality has been scientifically classified and can be physically measured by current techniques. As techniques improve, dissident thinking habits may also be physically measurable, and chemically correctable... whether or not they end up in the DSM is a matter of a group of scientists getting together and deciding what " normal " is. " One can pathologise any state by decree; the politicians, social workers and psychologists may do that on the basis of opinion, educational paradigms and bias, but genuine pathology is a state of physiological functioning and cannot simply be legislated into existence. " By 'patholigize', I was referring to the act of classifying a state, not creating one. Whether the deviation from normal is physically measurable, or successfully treatable with chemicals is not at issue. You seem to imply that if the deviance is measurably organic in nature, a given individual's mind state cannot be valuable to themselves or society, which is exactly what I'm objecting to. [That was your personal deduction. You quoted me out of context. Note that I also very clearly stated that " Even then, one cannot decree that pathology cannot periodically produce 'normality' and vice versa. " Mel Siff] Beethoven and Nietzsche, for instance, did some of their most inspiring and influential work while their minds were most likely in the end stages of syphillitic madness. If treatment were available, and everyone encouraged to seek it, would they have accepted it? Would we still have the Ninth Symphony or Zarathustra? Would the treatment have made their lives better and ours worse? I am posing this as an open-ended dilemma, a paradox. Not something that can be so tidily wrapped up. [As I wrote: " Even, then one cannot decree that pathology cannot periodically produce 'normality' and vice versa. " Mel Siff] Mainstream psychology and psychiatry operate on the level of the individual, not of society or of the course of history. They set up parameters of individual health and acceptable adaptation to prevailing circumstances. If there is a problem, the assumption is that the individual should be corrected and altered in order to adapt. What the psychiatrist does not do is seek to correct the prevailing circumstances. If you work long hours in a dreary factory and get depressed, your mental health provider doesn't go to the factory and change your working conditions, or go to congress and pass labor laws, he gives you pills to help you adapt. The relative value of normal and abnormal mental states, measurably organic or not is not something that can be decided by science - it is a more basic value judgement. As it stands, these decisions are being made by scientific specialists in favor of the status quo, using a narrow, individualistic paradigm. I contend that as brain science and mental health treatment progresses, the limitations of this paradigm need to be acknowledged, or we will begin to reduce our " mental biodiversity " as a species, and therefore our ability to adapt to changing circumstances as a species. [As a matter of fact, I fully agree with you that many current classifications and methods of treating 'mental' differences often leave a lot to be desired in the psychiatric profession. I have written about this periodically in previous letters, sometimes citing such books as " Toxic Psychiatry " as one that may be useful in presenting differing points of view. I think that you may have also noticed that I have sometimes even quoted Leary (e.g. see " The Politics of Ecstacy " for some interesting altered states views on this situation). We both know that some of the most 'normal' and supposedly spiritually " übernormaal " people and organisations on earth have wreaked untold misery throughout history. Yet, their " abnormal " critics often ended up in " asylums " , " gulags " or execution rocks. However, this does not validate Weil's statements on the value of ALL types of mental difference, pathological, societal or otherwise. Mel Siff] Wilbanks Madison, WI --------- " " <wilbanks@s...> wrote: > Dr. Siff, > > What exactly is the point of this 'critique' anyway? Character > assassination? > > [Elementary, dear , elementary - pursuit of the 'truth'. > By now you should realise that critiques provided by this group > are no respecters of persons, only of the correctness, honesty and > validity of the information that they proliferate. As a fairly dedicated > scientist-practitioner, I could not care an iota if the Pope, the Queen of > England or Einstein made a host of plausible-sounding claims; I would > still not hesitate to question those claims and ask for evidence. My comments > had nothing to do with Weil per se, but everything to do with ANYONE who > makes any far-reaching claims in public, especially about health. Mel Siff] > > Although not as irrelevant as the prior dismissal based on his > bodyfat percentage, I still fail to see the point of dwelling on his > ideas regarding quantum physics, potentially positive socio- > historical roles of psychotics, and spoon-benders. None of these > issues speak to the focus of his work. If you actually read his books, > you will find many merciless critiques of bogus 'alternative' medical > treatments and fad diets, as well as many mainstream medical > practices. I don't think he's right about everything he says, but on > balance, I find his ideas valuable, and I think he is probably doing > his audience more good than harm. He doesn't insist on uncritical > acceptance of a system or plan based on his ideas, he doesn't sell an > extensive line of overpriced supplements, or propagate a pyramid scheme. > > Among the good: his emphasis on eating a wide variety of unprocessed > foods for health and disease prevention; preference for gentler, less > invasive treatments, and sometimes safer, less refined medicines; the > use of cross-cultural epidemiological information to inform dietary > choices; willingness to consider treatments and ways of living > practiced by other cultures, even if they don't intially seem to make > sense or have an obvious rational explanation. > > [i actually DID state that some of his material definitely had merit, but it is well > known in the portals of propaganda theory that the best way to sell dubious, > abhorrent or unproved ideas is to admix them with valid, proven and worthy > ideas. That is why we have to learn to sift out the chaff and use the real wheat > of the claims of anyone who stands up there, chooses the limelight and invites > scrutiny by those high-profile actions. Mel Siff] > > I think this last point is especially important, and sorely absent > around here. I think this board can be very educational, but the > atmosphere is so hypercritical and rationality-obsessed that I wonder > if you aren't inadvertantly promoting a general attitude of > dismissiveness and hostility to new ideas and methods. If one cuts > everything to shreds that isn't yet flawlessly explained and > scientifically proven, where does that leave innovation? New ideas > and alternate paradigms are by their nature unproven, and sometimes > unprovable from within the rules of the old paradigms which they challenge. > > [The world of science and philosophy is characterised by constant analysis, argumentation, > proof, rebuttal, searching, discarding and innovating. Yes, application of this level of > scrutiny can be intimidating and irritating to some, but this is what has produced many > of the greatest ideas, inventions, advances, laws, discoveries and thinkers in history. > It has NEVER stifled innovation; on the contrary, it has taken us out of the Stone Age to > the Internet, Space and all levels of genius in life. If an idea and its promoters cannot stand > up to careful scrutiny, then that is the fault of the idea and its promoters, not the critics. > This board carries out this tradition in a generally very civilised, scientific and open fashion, with > contributions from those on all sides of the fence, so that nobody is being excluded or > forced to believe. That is what makes the Supertraining list quite special and what > breeds a far more discerning and more educated person in the world of applied sports, > strength, fitness and health. Mel Siff] > > Since you brought it up, Weil's discussion of psychosis is a good example. Looking at the > phenomenon from the perspective of the course of societies and the > human race over large periods of time, 'psychosis' can be seen as a > valuable force for change and adaptation. Many of the most pivotal > advances in philosophy, science, art, and technological invention > were and are the products of 'psychotic' minds. Would we be better > off, if these minds had been systematically patholigized and > medicated or surgeried into a state of 'mental health'? > > [Weil's analysis of 'psychosis' on the basis of flawed and biased human > classification, sociopolitics and linguistic manoeuverings is naive. There is a > major difference between chronic states of organic mental disease and societal > labels of societally-dissident ways of thinking or periodic altered states of > consciousness. One can pathologise any state by decree; the politicians, social > workers and psychologists may do that on the basis of opinion, educational > paradigms and bias, but genuine pathology is a state of physiological functioning > and cannot simply be legislated into existence. Even, then one cannot decree that > pathology cannot periodically produce 'normality' and vice versa. Mel Siff] > > I, for one, am glad I live in a world where the madness of > Beethovens, Nietzsches, and Teslas has been allowed to run wild. > Looked at from within a contemporary allopathic medical paradigm, these ideas may seem a disservice to > sick persons who need treatment - that's because this paradigm is > fixed on a smaller scale, and has different assumptions and aims. > > I wonder what it will do to the long-term survival chances of our > species if we " progress " in terms of our ability to enforce mental > normality with pills and therapies that view the issue only in terms > of individuals coping with narrowly conceived situations. > > [Judging from all your remarks, it appears that you did not read through all of the recommended > websites which analysed several aspects of Weil's work. Please don't rely solely on the > extracts that I pasted into my letter. The critics all acknowledged that Weil repeated some genuinely > useful and proven information. but they also addressed some non-sense and nonsense to show that, > despite a person's popularity and status, we should all still recall that old Roman admonition > " caveat emptor " (beware the buyer). Mel Siff] > > Wilbanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.