|
posted by dennisn on August 27th, 2010 at 10:36AM
He wasn't using science as a metaphor -- he was actually trying (miserably) to justify his beliefs using his pathetic knowledge of it. It wasn't the state-of-the-art that was lacking -- it was /his/ own misunderstandings of it. And his imagination. Everything he said about atomic physics and gravitational forces and cosmology were incredibly dumb, unproven, and almost certainly wrong, even many decades ago. The fact that he used this incredibly flawed hand-waving as the foundation for his theories (instead of simply using his own personal experiences) shows a very serious lack of honesty. A betrayal of trust. (Which is really hard to regain.) You shouldn't be surprised at my aversion.
1. Specialty degrees in psychosomatic medecine (a mostly-bullshit non-scientific invention of Hanna's), psychotherapy (again, mostly non-scientific bullshit, except for very rare properly done (double-blind rigorous studies) exceptions), general medecine (how many years of this, and how general :b -- sounds like a casual introduction -- aka. useless), and Public Health training (sounds more like public policy (in violent-medecine) then actual medecine :s) ... all those things really discredit Mr. Milz. Thanks for pointing them out! :P (Milz is obviously an un-educated (or, rather, mis-educated) disciple of Hanna's -- completely biased and unreliable. The whole article was basically Hanna (and his puppy dog) bragging about how awesome he is. No objective credible third-party anywhere in sight.) 2. I really think you should reconsider whatever course you're taking, if they us him, and people like him, as any kind of authority :S. There have to be more honest people out there in that field! (Regarding your muscle tension and analysis of it -- perfectly good and ok. If only Hanna stuck to this basic kinesiology I would have been happy. But he didn't. He strays far FAR into fantasy and bullshit -- it's more a religion laced with tidbits of science, then the reverse.) 3. Stop reading the theory :|. Just from that article I can assure you it's all (mostly all :b) wrong. Find real medical texts on kinesiology, and such. I'm sure there is a grain of truth in the muscle/brain patterning -- and I'm sure you can find it more properly and tersely described elsewhere. 4. His views on aging were: --> "there are no such things as genetically programmed central nervous system deficits, loss of brain tissue, and other similar events that were assumed to take place both in the central nervous system and motor system during aging." FALSE. --> "but we’re not bound to deteriorate or degenerate" FALSE Again, he's right about a few things (how aging can be "slowed", or the quality of life of old age improved) but he takes this grain of truth to absurd religious dimensions. This is pseudoscience. The fact that he makes such statements as above, without a hint of skepticism or self-doubt, is what disturbs me the most. (Far more than the fact that they are wrong. His snake-oil-salesman dishonesty. (If he were honest, he would have prefaced a lot more of his statements with "current studies suggest" and "in my humble opinion" and "it hasn't been proven, but.." etc. But he didn't. Instead he presents them misleadingly as truths. Ugh.)) The articles you linked to are all interesting and irrelevant :b. Nobody is disputing neuroplasticity. I can go through that article sentence by sentence for you to show you his blatant lies and misunderstandings ... that he wraps around this grain of truth of a malleable brain. And, you still seem to have a warped view of what "science" is. It's ALL there is :P. It *is* the search for knowledge/truth. Everything is "found out on the field" then later proved by rigorous testing. (A few things are first theorized then proved in the field -- either way, "the field" is a *key* component :b.) Unless he did rigorous studies (anecdotal stories from patients is almost entirely worthless), you can't trust his theories. (As if his lying wasn't enough to lose your trust in him :.) They are just handwaving. There are tonnes of people who HAVE done honest / rigorous studies in this field. You should be studying them instead. 5. Obviously there is a physical sensation to thoughts/emotions. Our brains are connected to our bodies :P. Nobody is disputing that. It's all the religion he wraps this around that really pisses me off :|. It's not the language that appears crazy, it's HIM and his LIES and imaginative ideas. His language is ok. His coincidental tendency toward voluntaryist thinking is refreshing to read, but a crazy voluntaryist is still a crazy person. I don't like crazy people. |
